1969-07-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
to table a copy of a message from the Canadian High Commission in Lagos, dated July 14, 1969, on the subject of the report in the Globe and Mail of July 12 relating to a statement alleged to have been made by Brigadier Hamilton.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in French and English two copies of the 69th report of the National Capital Commission. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for not having tabled that report yesterday, which was the deadline, but one of the essential signatures was missing, due to the summer holidays. I hope that the house will excuse me for this slight irregularity.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Presideni of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, further to an undertaking given earlier by the Prime Minister I should like to table copies of correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Fullerton, the chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, in respect of the latter's resignation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


[Stage Direction]
Qusetion No. 2,217-Mr. Robinson:
1.	Does the Department of Justice provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-1968 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-1968 inclusive, and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 19601968 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided, to whom are they distributed, and how is the distribution effected?
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1,	2 and 3. The Department of Justice does not provide an information service. However, I am informed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who, before being transferred to the Department of the Solicitor General on October 1, 1966, as follows: 1. Yes. 1960, $18,320; 1961, $22,800; 1962, $37,765; 1963, $39,269; 1964, $42,449; 1965, $46,704.
2 and 3.
				Distri-	Public
Year	Cost	Publications	bution	Releases1960/61	-	Not available	-	Not available1961/62	-	Not available	-	281962/63	
$	347.04	"Serve Canada With RCMP"	11,568	22S	1,273.63	"Career in Scarlet"	2,549	-*$	2,932.00	"Crime in Your Community"	54,700	-1963/64	
$	435.48	"Serve Canada With RCMP"	14,516	32i	1,117.84	"Career in Scarlet"	2,178	-
Questions

July 16. 1969
Year	Cost
1964/65	 $	280.00
$	447.15
$	99.00
?	909.00
*	423.00


[Stage Direction]
1965/66	 S	846.30
$ 2,912.56 $	583.50
$	818.00
$ 3,420.58 *$ 2,431.10
'Reimbursed 50 per cent by Bank of Canada.
Distri-
Publications	bution
"RCMP Service Dogs"	1,000
1 ' Historical Outline "	4,065
"RCMP Band Posters"	550
"RCMP Blue Book"	5,050
"Serve Canada With RCMP"	13,200
"Career in Scarlet"	6,179
"Historical Outline"	10,270
"RCMP Blue Book"	21,464
"RCMP Musical Ride"	8,066
"Serve Canada With RCMP"	35,500
"Career in Scarlet"	10,815
"Crime in Your Community"	34,730
Public
Releases
37
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many persons on the Executive of Polymer Corporation speak, as their mother tongue (a) French (b) English (c) other, and how many are bilingual?
2.	How many persons on the Board of Directors of Polymer Corporation speak, as their mother tongue (a) French (b) English (c) other, and how many are bilingual?
3.	What is the amount of capital expenditures by Polymer Corporation (a) in Ontario (b) in Quebec?
4.	Is Polymer Corporation planning to establish a production branch or a subsidiary in the Province of Quebec and, if not, for what reason?
5.	How many employees does Polymer Corporation have (a) in Quebec (b) in Ontario?
6.	What was the return on invested capital for the last three years?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as Polymer Corporation Limited is concerned: 1. (a) One; (b) Eight; (c) None. One member of the Executive is bilingual.
2.	(a) One; (b) Eight; (c) None. Two Board members are bilingual.
3.	The capital expenditures in Ontario as represented by fixed assets, amounted to $163,593,000 as of December 31, 1968. The Company does not have any fixed assets in Quebec and does not have a record of the value of the capital assets it has purchased in Quebec.
4.	No. The capacity of the Company's existing Canadian operations is sufficient for its current needs and the Company, therefore, does not have any current plans to establish a subsidiary or branch elsewhere in Canada.

However, it is continually seeking attractive opportunities for further expansion and growth.
5.	Polymer does not have any employees located in Quebec and had 2,649 employees in Ontario as of May 31, 1969.
6.	The return on invested capital for the last three years was as follows: 1966, 11.2%; 1967, 5.6%; 1968, 6.7%.


Mr. Robinson: Questions
Publications	Periodicals	Posters	Press Releases1960	26	8	1	1271961	37	8	1	1351962	480	8	137	1041963	522	8	144	901964	474	8	106	701965	893	8	134	981966	1178	8	254	861967	668	8	168	991968	750	8	127	143
All publications are the responsibility of each separate division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and their cost varies according to the requirements of the division. Thus, costs involved are difficult to obtain as new publications, reprints and revisions are done through a number of different channels. To assess costs of each publication would involve an excessive amount of staff research and would be most difficult under the present resource limitations.
3.	See answer in 2. Distribution is effected as follows: (a) health publications through the Provincial Departments of Health; (b) welfare publications through Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Assistance and Family Allowance Headquarters and Regional Offices.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What criteria does the government use in the choice of its tenderers in relation to the disposition by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation of trucks, jeeps, etc.?
2.	How many of these tenderers were from the Province of Quebec?
3.	How much has the government realized each year from the sale of goods by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for the period 1960 to 1968 inclusive?
4.	On what basis does the government compare the original costs of such goods?


James Armstrong Richardson: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. The Corporation maintains lists* 1 2 3 of all companies, establishments and individuals who have in some manner recorded with the Corporation their interest in the sale of trucks, jeeps, etc.
2.	There are 632 companies and individuals located in the Province of Quebec listed on the solicitation lists to receive tenders.
3.	1959-1960, $6,671,475; 1960-1961, $7,201,810; 1961-1962, $7,166,131; 1962-1963, $6,708,661; 1963-1964, $6,430,775; 1964-1965, $11,-
019,634;	1965-1966,	$10,932,480;	1966-1967,
$14,741,192; 1967-1968, $9,820,259; 1968-1969, $8,586,045; Total, $89,278,462.
4.	Most of the materials and surpluses sold by the Corporation consist of military equipment having little commercial application.
The bulk of the surpluses is sold on the basis of recovery of the value of the basic material content, as salvage and prices realized in most cases do not bear any meaningful relationship to the original cost of such goods.


Mr. Sulatycky: 1.	How many applications by an existing business for a renewal of its licence to function in a National Park have been refused since 1957?
2.	What is the name of each person, firm or corporation to whom or to which a renewed business licence has been refused since 1957?
3.	Prior to the refusal to grant such renewed licence, did the Crown in any case make an offer to the lessee of the property from which the applicant for such licence carried on business, for the purchase of the leasehold interest, which offer was refused?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. There are many business licences issued in National Parks each year and it would be necessary to examine each licence for each year since 1957 to yield this type of information. Records are not kept in such a way as to find this information without considerable cost financially and in man years. Business licences for established businesses are rarely refused renewal and when they are, if the operator agrees to meeting the minimum standards, the licence is issued or reinstated as the case may be.
2. As indicated in the answer to part 1, the costs financially and in man years to the taxpayer to search for the information would be exorbitant.

July 16, 1969
Questions
3. If the long-range plans of the Department involve a change in land use where substandard facilities exist, the Department may offer to purchase the unexpired leasehold interest, if sufficient funds are available and if the acquisition has sufficient priority.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Defence Production have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of the public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The former Department of Defence Production is now part of the Department of Supply and Services. The Department of Supply and Services has no public relations staff as such. Relations with the public media are part of the regular duties performed by the Information Division of the Department.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Gilbert: 1.	What amount of land (in acreage) is owned by the Government of Canada for the purpose of airports?
2.	At what location and what amount?
3.	What is the market value of such lands?
4.	Is all land employed for use by the government or for the specific use of air transportation?
5.	How much land at each location is used for other purposes?
6.	What are the contractual arrangements for such use?
7.	What is the government's remuneration as consideration for the use of those lands?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Province	Area in Acreas
Alberta	16,828
British Columbia	41,313
Manitoba	12,228
New Brunswick	4,722
Newfoundland	90,963
Nova Scotia	4,981
Ontario	33,220
Prince Edward Island	470
Quebec	111,951
Saskatchewan	6,325
Yukon Territory	9,559
Northwest Territories	57,382
Total	389,942

2, 3, 5 and 6. The information requested is very extensive and it will be time consuming to prepare. If the questions were related to specific airports it could be made available quite readily.
4.	When land is acquired for airport purposes it is sometimes necessary to purchase whole units of land for example, a whole farm where only a portion of the farm is required for airport purposes. This severance land is therefore surplus to airport requirements but is used for revenue purposes mainly through agricultural leases.
7.	The total revenue earned from land rentals for the fiscal year 1967/68 was $822,369. The land rental rate policy for land for commercial or industrial use at airports, with some exceptions, is calculated to earn interest on the market value of the land plus recovery of development costs plus an airport maintenance charge; and land for agricultural purposes is put out to tender periodically. At some airports land for commercial or industrial use is leased at standard rental rates established in accordance with a former land rental policy, but as leases come up for renewal their rental rates are brought in line with the existing policy.


Mr. Rose: 1.	What was the reason for the acquisition by the National Harbours Board from the Tsawwassen Indian Band of British Columbia of its property and/or rights?
2.	Was there any consultation with the Tsawwassen Indian Band regarding this acquisition?
3.	If so, what was the response of the Tsawwassen Indian Band?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Acquisition of thirteen acres from Indian Band was necessary for relocation of B.C. Hydro D.C. cable installation between lower mainland and Vancouver Island. B.C. Hydro had planned their installation of a highly specialized cable previous to the decision to develop Roberts Bank. The development of Roberts Bank necessitated that B.C. Hydro's plan be changed and the only practical alternative was through the Reserve.
2. There was very close and lengthy consultation with the Band respecting this acquisition both through their solicitor and by direct contact with Band officials.
July 16, 1969


[Stage Direction]
3. Indian Band has accepted an arrangement arrived at through the negotiations mentioned above.
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare considering placing a ban on the sale of war surplus gas masks?
2.	Has the Department received any representations from the Ontario Government regarding this matter?
3.	If so, what was the Department's reply?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare is consulting with other federal agencies with respect to the most appropriate means of controlling the sale of war surplus gas masks.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Department indicated that it was consulting with other federal agencies with respect to this problem.


Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What was the government's selling price of the air station at Picton, Ontario to Piasecki Aircraft of Canada Limited?
2.	Who are the chief executive officers of this company?
3.	Was there a competitive tender for the purchase of this airport?
4.	If so, who were the other bidders and what were their respective bids?
5.	If not, what were the reasons for not requesting competitive tenders for the sale of this Airport?


James Armstrong Richardson: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned:	1. A
portion of the Canadian Forces Base at Picton, Ontario was sold to Piasecki Aircraft of Canada Limited for the sum of $260,000.
2.	Directors: Frank M. Piasecki, H. George
S.	Bain, Arthur J. Kania, H. J. Bird. Officers: Frank M. Piasecki, President; Arthur J. Kania, Secretary-Treasurer; Donald M. Myers, Vice-President; Ernest Summers, VicePresident; James W. Clopp, Vice-President.
3.	No.
4.	N/A.
5.	About two years ago, Piasecki Aircraft Corporation of Philadelphia decided on the establishment of a Canadian based operation to develop a compound helicopter utilizing Canadian Pratt & Whitney engines and has since been looking for adequate existing facility for such a program. A Canadian subsidiary, Piasecki Aircraft of Canada Limited,
Questions
was incorporated in March 1968. Upon representation that Picton Base appeared to meet the company's requirements in most respects, particularly timing, the Government, anxious to take advantage of the opportunity to introduce in Canada a major helicopter industrial plant with export potential and considering the adverse effect on the regional economy caused by the closing of the Picton Base, authorized CAJDC to enter into immediate negotiations with Piasecki Aircraft of Canada Limited on the basis of the appraised value.


Mr. Forresiall: What specific steps are now being taken by the government to formulate a development policy as referred to in the reply to Question No. 2,086, for the Dartmouth side of Halifax Harbour?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: Specific steps to formulate a development policy for the Dartmouth side of Halifax Harbour will depend on the outcome of consultations with local interests.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,541
Mr. Robinson:: 1.	What was the total revenue received from sales of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation in each of the years 1945 to 1968 inclusive?
2.	What was the book value of the assets at the time of disposition to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
3.	What percentage of the items were classified (a) obsolete (b) obsolescent?


James Armstrong Richardson: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. The total revenue received from the gross sales of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation in each of the years 1948 to 1968 inclusive is as follows: 1944-1945, $9,116,131.55; 1945-1946, $124,878,368.66;	1946-1947,	$219,205,531.91;
1947-1948, $74,046,218.69; 1948-1949, $30,495,341.87; 1949-1950, $11,650,550.30;	1950-1951,
$20,770,555.12; 1951-1952, $3,864,777.40; 19521953, $4,311,238.51; 1953-1954, $4,330,310.47; 1954-1955, $5,578,069.36;	1955-1956, $6,727,490.13;	1956-1957,	$8,524,750.05;	1957-1958,
$7,841,996.51; 1958-1959, $9,910,619.78; 19591960, $8,638,052.91; 1960-1961, $9,577,566.79; 1961-1962, $13,229,716.82; 1962-1963, $8,881,212.97; 1963-1964, $11,239,647.39; 1964-1965, $17,267,031.33; 1965-1966, $16,368,882.28; 19661967, $25,861,947.15; 1967-1968, $14,790,114.43; 1968-1969, $15,239,067.54.

July 16. 1969
Questions
2.	The book value of the assets declared surplus to the Corporation was never provided to the Corporation by the declaring departments. However, from the years 1965/66 on, in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee recorded in Votes and Proceedings No. 205 of December 7, 1964, departments and agencies report the cost, as recorded in their perpetual inventory accounting system, of (1) obsolete but serviceable and (2) surplus but serviceable material declared surplus. The latter information appears in the annual issue of the Public Accounts of Canada.
3.	The Corporation does not maintain its records in such a manner as to provide this information.


Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to providing additional necessary facilities at the Ferry Terminals at Caribou, N.S. and Wood Island, P.E.I. for the Nova Scotia-P.E.I. Ferry Service?
2.	If so, when is it expected that a decision will be reached?
3.	Is consideration being given to the provision of a third ferry for the service?
2.	For each year since 1960, what have been Kaiser Jeep Canada Limited's exports and imports of automotive products?
3.	Since the Automotive Pact was signed in 1964, what has been the estimated loss in Canadian duties accorded to Kaiser Jeep Canada Limited?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes.
2.	Detailed information on the internal affairs of each company participating in the automotive program is given to the Government on a regular basis. This information is confidential. Its public disclosure could be detrimental to the company concerned and adversely affect the flow of confidential information to the Government from other participants in the program.
3.	There is every indication that Kaiser Jeep has fully complied with the terms of the automotive program allowing duty free flow of its Canadian made products into the U.S. and vice versa. There is, therefore, no estimated loss in Canadian duties accorded to this company.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Additional terminal facilities are being provided at Wood Island, P.E.I. to be completed about mid-July. Provision of additional facilities at Caribou, N.S., await conclusion of forthcoming discussions with the Province.
2. See 1.


Mr. Dionne: What was the total amount of loans granted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the construction of homes for the aged in the federal constituency of Kamouraska in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?
3. Yes.


Mr. Broadbenf: 1.	Was Kaiser Jeep Canada Limited defined as a *manufacturer' under the terms of the Canada-U.S. Automotive Pact?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was there a competitive tender by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the feasibility study on introducing Canadian timber-frame construction methods in France?
2.	If so, what were the names of the bidders for this study?
3.	If not, why was Campeau Corporation of Ottawa chosen for this study?
4.	What financial amount was given to the Campeau Corporation for this feasibility study?
5.	What were the results of this feasibility study?
6.	What financial and other arrangements have been made with the Campeau Corporation as a result of this study?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. No. This is a private enterprise project with Government assistance directed at increasing the export of Canadian building materials.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	The Canadian Home Manufacturers Association, whose members comprise prefabricated housing producers from across Canada, was asked to suggest representation on the Special Housing Study Mission to France, March 30 to April 6, 1968. Their selection included Campeau Corporation Limited of Ottawa. As a result of the Mission, Campeau Corporation Ltd. concluded that a project of this nature would be of interest to them if assistance from the Canadian Government could be obtained. In considering their request for assistance, the Department noted that Campeau Corporation Ltd. had the necessary expertise in major single family housing project developments and factory assembly of components, as well as a French-speaking capability for supervisory and labour training purposes. In these respects, they met the essential criteria suggested by the special mission.
4.	The agreement with Campeau Corporation Ltd. covering the feasibility and information study provides for the payment of the costs of the study in an amount not to exceed $97,000.
5.	The study, the results of which will be made available to Canadian home builders, is not yet complete. Findings to date support proceeding with five prototype houses to confirm these findings.
6.	The Department is negotiating with Campeau Corporation Ltd. with respect to assistance to be provided for the construction of the five prototype houses for demonstration purposes, the amount of such assistance not to exceed $140,500.
Orders for Returns


Mr. Southam: 1.	Has the government studied the problem of weather forecasting in Southern Saskatchewan particularly with respect to the forecast for the higher altitudes and. if so, what are the results of such studies?
2.	If such facilities are not available to assist farmers in accurately planning their day-to-day operations, on what date is it expected that such facilities will be available?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. Yes.
2. In addition to facilities already in being, improvements planned for the area over the next two fiscal years include the installation of two new weather reporting stations and the expansion of the weather reporting program at Kindersley.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dionne: 1. What amount of wheat, oats and barley was harvested in Canada during the years 1966, 1967 and 1968?
2.	How much of this grain was sold to mills in Canada during the same years and for what prices?
3.	How much of this grain was sold to foreign countries during the same years and for what prices?
4.	What was the amount paid by each of the purchasing countries during the same years?
5 Which of the countries purchasing wheat or other grain have not paid for their purchases to date, and what is the amount owed by each?
Return tabled.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION-COST OF INFORMATION SERVICE AND NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Defence Production provide an information service and, if so, what was the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive and what was the cost for each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?
Return tabled.
11278	COMMONS DEBATES	July 16, 1969
Increase in Bank of Canada Interest Rate



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 FINANCE INCREASE IN BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE

Mr. Max Saltsman (Walerloo):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), to move the adjournment of the house under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the rise in the bank rate to 8 per cent announced yesterday by the Bank of Canada, which will have the effect of raising the interest rate and the cost of living to an unprecedented level and increasing the hardships to all those on fixed incomes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair the notice required under the provisions of Standing Order 26. The problem raised by the hon. member for Waterloo is obviously an important one; it refers to a situation which is undoubtedly urgent. At the same time, I am sure it is a matter which is of continuing interest to all hon. members of the house.
As everyone knows, there has been a pattern of changing interest rates in recent months and from time to time announcements have been made by the Bank of Canada of alterations in the bank rate. The inevitable conclusion is that the problem is of continuing concern. As evidence of this the Chair need only refer to the fact that on June 25 the very matter referred to in the hon. member's motion was referred by the house to one of its standing committees for consideration. The order of the house reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to consider the present level of interest rates in Canada and their relation both to rates in other countries and to economic conditions in Canada and elsewhere.
In this sense the matter is before a committee of the house. As I have said, the fact that the house has already been dealing with the situation for some time is an indication that we have here a problem which is of a continuing nature. In this sense I doubt very much that it falls within the purview of Standing Order 26. For these reasons I regret very much that it will not be possible at this time to put to the house the motion proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 256 is acceptable to the government.

MANPOWER TREND STUDIES Motion No. 256-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the recent studies on manpower trends in Canada undertaken in the Department of Manpower and Immigration referred to by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his speech at Wolfville, Nova Scotia, on June 26, 1969.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 140, 206, 214, 255 and 257?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



GUIDELINES ISSUED TO IMMIGRATION OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 140-Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents received by the Prime Minister, Minister of Manpower and Immigration or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with respect to the admissibility by the Government of Canada of deserters, draft dodgers or military personnel from any other country seeking immigration to this country and a copy of all instructions, regulations, guidelines or memoranda circulated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to departmental officials at Immigration centres respecting immigration to this country issued since January 1, 1967.
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has no objection in principle to gathering together all the correspondence called for in the first part of this motion. However, the papers requested in the second part are directives circulated within the department from headquarters to field staff. It has not been the practice to make public such papers because of their confidential character. In view of this, perhaps the hon. gentleman would agree to withdraw his motion, because we accept the first part.
uly 16, 1969


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, since another motion of mine applies to the second part and it was put over for debate, I agree to the request of the parliamentary secretary.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



SALES TAX ON DRUGS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 206-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of any reports, reviews or studies of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding the removal of the federal sales tax on pharmaceuticals and drugs.
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the reports, reviews or studies referred to by the hon. member consist of working sheets and memoranda composed for internal use in the department and passing between officials and the minister. As such they are privileged documents, the production of which is contrary to public policy. In view of this, I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the taxpayers of Canada made these concessions, I think these documents should be made public. Therefore I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion shall be transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL POSTAL ZONING CODE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 214-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the interim study undertaken by one of the task forces in the Department of Communications regarding a national postal zoning code as referred to by the Minister of Communications in Hansard of June 9, page 9870.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications has asked me to refuse this motion on the grounds that the final report of the study to which reference has been made of a national postal code has not yet been received and that it is therefore not possible to determine at this time whether the publication of this report in whole or in part would be in the public interest. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I accept the government's explanation and I withdraw the motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



MESSAGE FROM PRIME MINISTER TO GENERAL GOWON

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 255-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the message sent by the Prime Minister to General Gowan as mentioned on July 2, 1969, as reported in Hansard on page 10751.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, communications between heads of government are normally confidential and their contents not made public. In any case such action cannot be taken unilaterally. In the circumstances I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Because of the importance of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I would like to transfer the motion for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate and placed on the order paper under the heading Notices of Motions (Papers), pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 48(1).



PRELIMINARY STUDY, CONFLICT OF INTEREST LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 257-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the preliminary study of existing legislation on conflict of interest provisions for Members of Parliament, the Senate and other public officials as referred to by the President of the Privy Council in a recent statement to the press.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the documents in response to this motion are made up of internal studies prepared by members of my own staff, in addition to a study prepared by the research branch of the library. I would, of course, claim privilege in respect of my own internal documents, but if the hon. member is agreeable I would be prepared to table the study just mentioned in response to the motion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will accept what is
11280	COMMONS
Request for Assistance to Western Farmers
offered and then decide where to go from there.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the minister, is it agreed that notice of motion No. 257 shall be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling oral questions,
I would like to suggest to the house that we be allowed to return to motions. The hon. member for Lotbiniere indicated by letter that he proposes to make a motion. Unfortunately we are moving with such speed and expeditiousness today-

-we have forgotten or lost the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) en route. Therefore, we revert to motions to allow him to propose his motion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I am asking the unanimous consent of the house to move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), the following motion:
That the standing committee on agriculture be immediately requested to inquire into the extremely harmful effects suffered by the milk producers of the Province of Quebec, in respect of deliveries above their quota set by the Canadian Dairy Commission, on which the witholding rate of 52 cents per cwt. of milk constitutes an unbearable penalty.
Mr. Speaker, without taking needlessly the time of the house and delaying its business, even if very often Creditistes are ahead, I should like to ask for the consent of my hon. colleagues in order to bring this question before the house, so that the hon. members from the province of Quebec will have the opportunity to bring forth the problems facing their constituents at the present time and the government to make known its policy with regard to the dairy industry.
Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem. Dairy producers are penalized; they are taxed 
DEBATES	July 16, 1969
52 cents per cwt. for milk for which they are not paid. Such a tax drives most of those producers to bankruptcy, as can be seen in the Canada Gazette.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I conclude my comments on this matter by expressing the hope that my colleagues from the province of Quebec, realizing the importance of the situation, will co-operate and try to bring their colleagues to give their unanimous consent so that the dairy producers of Quebec may be protected.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has moved a motion under Standing Order 43 for which unanimous consent is required.

I therefore ask the house whether there is unanimous agreement to consider the problem referred to by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the hon. member that among the comments which have just been made, I have heard some negative ones and, under the circumstances, it will be impossible to proceed under Standing Order 43.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the urgency of the telegram sent to the minister and four of his colleagues today by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which referred to the disastrous income losses being suffered by western farmers and called for immediate and substantial action to be taken by the federal government by way of providing cash assistance, whether he would tell the house what reply is being given to the urgent representations made to the government in this telegram?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Leader of the
July 16. 1969	COMMONS
Opposition received the telegram before I did; I have not seen it yet.


An hon. Member:: Go to your office.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the minister does not know what is going on. May I redirect the question to the Acting Prime Minister; at least he must be aware of what is going on.
In light of the allegation by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that the government has made no response to the proposals submitted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture on May 28, almost two months ago, will the minister say what decision is being made in regard to their proposals of May 28 which are referred to in the telegram to which I have just alluded? Are the proposals still under consideration and, if so, when may we expect a statement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. The proposals that were put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are still under consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of this situation may I direct a question to the genial President of the Privy Council. In light of the situation disclosed a few days ago by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and referred to in the telegram from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and in view of the emergency situation on the prairies, will the President of the Privy Council now agree to consult with the opposition parties in order that arrangements can be made to provide during the next few days one of the opposition allotted days so that special consideration can be given to the emergency at a time when the appropriate minister is in the house?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I would be glad to arrange for a discussion of this kind as soon as the rules debate is disposed of. If the hon. gentleman has any influence with his colleagues, perhaps he might persuade them to bring that matter to a head.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think it is preposterous that we cannot have a debate on this important subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With your co-operation, Mr. Speaker, I will meet the minister here tomorrow night at ten o'clock.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since apparently no plans have been made to comply with requests of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is the Prime Minister in the course of his western tour prepared to meet representatives of that organization?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Prime Minister will meet a number of companies and others who are members of the Federation of Agriculture. But his chief purpose in going out west is to meet the people of western Canada and not organized groups.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: He is staying away from the people.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government aware that in western Canada there are two substantial farm organizations, namely, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that supplementary is in order.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since members of the cabinet seem to take the attitude that the present situation in western Canada is one they may treat with jocularity and contempt-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Withdraw, withdraw!


John George Diefenbaker: You know better than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George James McIlraith: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps, with those introductory remarks, the right hon. gentleman might ask his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that it has been established that the cabinet does not hold that view I am hopeful of obtaining a favourable answer from the adamantine President of the Privy Council. Will he adjourn the debate on the rules so that something may be done to meet the serious situation on the prairies which has been cavalierly brushed aside by the government?
July 16, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. member is seriously interested in the matter he will let the debate come to a vote. After that we could get on with the matter he raised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: So the farmers are not to
be helped.


Mr. Bell:: Merry Christmas! That's how long we will stay here.



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Did the governor of the Bank of Canada consult him on the matter of raising the Bank of Canada's interest rate to 8 per cent? Has this step the government's approval and concurrence?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of course the matter of the interest rate is a decision for the governor of the Bank of Canada, but I ought to indicate that I was consulted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the chartered banks have often raised their commercial interest rates after the Bank of Canada has increased its rate, has the minister taken any steps to persuade the chartered banks not to raise their commercial interest rates inasmuch as there is no law requiring that there be a spread of one percentage point between the commercial and Bank of Canada rates?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as the governor of the bank explained in his statement, the bank rate was raised primarily for external purposes. Interest rates prevailing in other parts of the world are so attractive that Canadian funds have been moving out to be invested in other parts of the world through swap deposits. This flow increased by some $180 million last week. To rectify the situation the governor of the Bank of Canada first of all requested that the banks maintain swap deposits only at their present level and, second, he increased the Bank of Canada rate to 8 per cent. I sincerely hope this does not mean that there will be an increase in the commercial prime rate which is now at 8J per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While all hon. members share the pious hope of the Minister of Finance, what I am asking is whether he has had or intends to have any meetings with the representatives of the chartered banks in order to persuade them, by whatever means at his disposal, not to raise the commercial rate and not to use the increased rate of the Bank of Canada as an excuse for doing so as has been the case so often in the past?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not direct the banks in respect of what rates they may charge and neither does the governor of the Bank of Canada, as he indicated in his testimony before a committee of this house. I do not see any occasion for an increase in the prime rate in these particular circumstances.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the minister, I believe he said the Bank of Canada rate was being raised because funds owned by Canadians were flowing out of the country. How does he think this step will be effective in retaining funds in Canada unless it is reflected in higher interest rates in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, swapped deposits, as my hon. friend will understand from the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada, are carried out through the banks. The increase in the bank rate means it will cost the banks more to get money if they should turn to the Bank of Canada. The governor has also placed a ceiling on swapped deposits. The request of the governor of the Bank of Canada should discourage this outflow because interest rates are higher in other countries than in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, could the
Minister of Finance indicate what effect the higher interest rates have had on the holdings of Canada Savings Bonds?


Edgar John Benson: To date there have been no undue redemptions of Canada Savings Bonds. They are moving along relatively at the same rate as in the past.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Could the minister tell us whether the Canadian constitution has been amended, and when, to give the governor of the Bank of Canada such powers to increase interest rates?
July 16, 1969


Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance along the line of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the fact that the minister in his reply indicated that unless the commercial bank rate is raised the effect on the outflow of funds is likely to be fairly small and, indeed, negligible, is it not more appropriate for the government and the governor of the Bank of Canada to take other steps to stop the outflow of funds by means of limited, discretionary foreign exchange controls rather than by starting the interest rates going up all over again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me fhe question is argumentative. It gives that appearance, but in view of its importance perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Edgar John Benson: We are not contemplating foreign exchange controls at the present time.
I should say that our reserves are not being seriously depleted but a continuation of what was going on, as indicated in the swap deposits figures published by the Bank of Canada last week, would indicate that there is a problem which should be faced, and we have faced it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what value there is to the people of Canada in starting a further upward hump in the interest rate if the effect on the outflow is likely to be negligible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this supplementary is argumentative.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that the governor of the Bank of Canada has decided to raise the discount rate and also that according to his statement the minister was not consulted in that regard, is the latter ready to tell us if he is willing to urge the Canadian chartered banks not to raise their interest rates?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I said I was consulted, not that I was not consulted, by the governor of the Bank of Canada. I previously indicated I would hope the chartered banks would not increase their prime rates.
Inquiries oj the Ministry [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
I realize that the minister perhaps has not grasped my question. I was asking whether he intends to enter into discussions with the chartered banks to regulate the interest rates and prevent an increase.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member repeats a question that was asked a few moments ago.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to ask a supplementary question.
Would the Minister of Finance tell the house whether foreign countries or this government should make decisions concerning the interest rate?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance arising from this morning's report that bank loans are up by $221 million despite pressures from Ottawa. In light of the effect of the pressures from Ottawa, is the minister considering any additional steps to curtail the issuing of credit in Canada and to bring interest rates down?


Edgar John Benson: I think the effect of the pressure from Ottawa is being and will be felt by the banks. The figures to which my hon. friend is referring are applicable, I believe, to a week or ten days ago, and this situation changes weekly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo on a final supplementary.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house that he is preparing emergency measures to make sure that the interest rate does settle down if the spiral continues?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I would have to rule that the question is hypothetical.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the plight of thousands of married couples qualifying for the old age pension who have been separated for years

July 16, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry but not legally. Because of their married status they do not qualify for full social benefits.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might agree with me that this is a question of a very general scope and the type of question which normally would call for a statement on motions. I wonder whether the hon. member might like to qualify his question in this way.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, may I ask the minister whether he will make a statement on motions in respect of this problem?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the question or statement made by the hon. member I do not believe a statement is required. This matter is under consideration for review and revision of the act.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can assure the house that there will be further discussions, either by himself or by representatives of the department, with the Conference of Defence Associations before a final decision is taken with regard to the continuing strength of the reserve forces, especially the militia?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I indicated yesterday that we already had consulted with the Defence Associations. There is to be a further meeting or meetings some time in early August I believe. Discussions and negotiations will be continued with the Conference of Defence Associations.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasf-ings):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he anything to pass on to the house regarding the progress being made in the conversations which have been going on in Stockholm for some time now regarding recognition of Communist China by this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, toward the end of last week there were further discussions on the outstanding issues. I cannot really say anything more about them except that the negotiations are tough and may continue for some time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise the house what advantages the government believes will accrue to Canada, if we are permitted to recognize Communist China, that will make up for the humiliation this country has succumbed to for the past eight months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that if the minister is to reply it should be on motions and not by way of a reply to a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, probably the minister would be able to clarify the situation in connection with the negotiations going on with Mao's representatives. Has there been any indication given, as rumour has it, that the Communist government of Red China is prepared to accept recognition provided Taiwan is sacrificed, and will in compensation purchase additional wheat rather than purchasing wheat from Australia which does not recognize it?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know the question of wheat has never entered into the negotiations on recognition.


TETRACYCLINE-ALLEGED FRAUD BY U.S. COMPANIES IN OBTAINING PATENT
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of which I have given him notice. In light of the fact that the United States government has filed a $25 million damage suit against American Cyanamid and Chas. Pfizer and Co. for fraudulently obtaining a patent for the antibiotic drug tetracycline, can the minister indicate whether his department is investigating if similar fraudulence has occurred in Canada in respect of the same companies?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, following receipt of information about this officials will be getting in contact with United States
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
officials to obtain more information than is available in the press reports. We will be following the course of the United States inquiries or investigations to determine whether there is any basis upon which to believe an investigation should be carried out in Canada. We need more information because of the fact there are a number of tetracycline patents in Canada and we do not know from United States reports which are involved.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Keiih Kymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he is aware of a wage settlement announced in Toronto involving one segment of the building trades, namely, carpenters and joiners, providing for a 43 per cent wage increase over a period of less than two years? Is the Prices and Incomes Commission studying this settlement and will it investigate the inflationary aspect of this and other wage settlements?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there has been a substantial wage settlement although I am not certain of the precise percentage. I am also aware that there have been other very substantial wage and cost increases in respect of construction, which in turn are reflected in increased construction costs. I am sure this is a matter of concern to us all. The Prices and Incomes Commission which is independent will, I have no doubt, regard the construction industry as one of the key sectors of the economy. I am sure this is one of the areas in which it will have an interest.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is he prepared to tell us whether that question is one of the hypocritical ones?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence because it is suggested that he cannot tell the difference between a bomber and a fuel carrier. I do not believe this. I am wondering whether he will tell the house that the United
Inquiries of the Ministry States defence authorities have in fact made two distinct and separate requests in respect of dispersal of SAC sites and the renewal of the old agreement, or was there some misunderstanding involved in the answer the minister made yesterday?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think the misunderstanding originates from the fact that the question was posed in this way:
I wish to ask... whether there has been any request or approach on the part of United States officials with regard to the possibility of dispersing SAC bomber sites and locating some of them in Canada?
My answer, of course, was a bit confused following that question. I said yes, because I could not say no, the SAC system comprising both bombers and tankers. The request we received was for a refuelling system for tankers in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts whether this question ought not to have originally been placed on the order paper. Perhaps the whole question might be "sacked". In view of the fact the Leader of the Opposition has been allowed a supplementary question, perhaps the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands ought to be allowed to pursue the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Pentagon has asked for refuelling bases in Canada, according to the minister's statement, I should like to ask what reason the Pentagon gave for reactivating an agreement which was rescinded in 1963?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I am qualified to go into the reasons. This is part of an over-all dispersal plan because conditions have changed. The request made to the Canadian government is for the renewal of the agreement which existed then, with some difference to the extent that no aircraft will be permanently stationed on these bases, that the bases will be used only in case of an international crisis, and that the aircraft will fly from Canadian bases to carry out their assigned missions and return to their home bases on termination of the crisis. Peacetime operations would be held to test the operation. What is basically requested actually are landing strips, some facilities for the refuelling of aircraft, and parking areas. That is all that is requested.
July 16, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the request by the United States government involve the stationing of U.S. military personnel on Canadian soil, and will the program include not only a military alert but also tactical or strategic exercises?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, whether exercises in a time of crisis would be called strategic exercises is not for me to determine. The request is that these bases would be used in time of international crises.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that my questions of yesterday and today are of urgent public importance. Therefore I should like to ask the minister when the request was made by the United States and what answer the government of Canada proposes to make?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have an indication that discussions took place through the permanent joint board and at different levels to reinstate the former agreement. They began about May, 1967. They have been going on ever since. I cannot indicate what the decision of the government will be because it has not been taken.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the agreement, as I recall it, was made during the period of my administration, is it a fact that what is being sought by the United States now merely involves changes and new conditions referred to by the minister? Is there any reason in the interests of Canada and the protection of this country for not acceding to the request so long as our sovereignty is maintained?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: If I were permitted to express a personal opinion I would agree with the right hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has a supplementary question, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister answered only the latter part of my question. I also asked him whether or not the request of the Pentagon involved the stationing of United States military personnel on Canadian soil?


John George Diefenbaker: What would be wrong with that?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the provisions, if I remember correctly, involves United States personnel for training, if some arrangement has been made with the Canadian authorities. My understanding is that these personnel would be flown in with the operation itself in the event of an international crisis.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of Canada's difficulty in obtaining tanker refuelling planes for our CF-5's, would one of the considerations be having available on Canadian soil K-135 tankers with the refuelling capacity necessary for our aircraft in order to make them operationally possible?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The tanker to which my hon. friend has referred is actually one that we are considering.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


An hon. Member:: He has been out looking for a cigarette.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Max Saltsman: It is in connection with a reply he gave me during the adjournment debate regarding the exemption of Menno-nites from the Canada Pension Plan. At that time the minister indicated he would discuss this matter with the cabinet. Has he discussed it with them and, if so, what conclusions have been reached?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration by the government at the present time. No decision has yet been reached.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Like everything else.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister give us some indication when a decision will be reached? Will it be before parliament adjourns?


John Carr Munro: Possibly some time in the next few weeks, Mr. Speaker.
July 16, 19S9	COMMONS DEBATES
Inquiries of the Ministry
NATIONAL DEFENCE	TRANSPORT
PRESENCE OF SOVIET VESSEL OFF QUEEN	RAILWAYS-MAINTENANCE OF PASSENGER
CHARLOTTE ISLANDS	SERVICE STANDARD


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):
Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to Mr. Speaker, my question is related to one the previous line of questioning directed to already asked and has to do with tourists the Minister of National Defence with regard during the peak of the summer season. Is the to the subject of foreign personnel on or near minister now in a position to reply to the Canadian territory. Has the minister had any question directed to him earlier regarding the reports of a Soviet vessel, allegedly on an lack of service on Canadian Pacific and oceanographic survey, which has been Canadian National Railways?
anchored off the Queen Charlotte Islands for some days during the past week, and have units of the Canadian defence forces been maintaining surveillance of this vessel?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs probably has more information on this matter than I have. All I know is that the Canadian forces are maintaining surveillance of the ship. This is just a normal operation for the forces. We understand that the ship is outside our limits on the west coast, and therefore it does not present any security problem.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the congenial Minister of Transport. Has the minister any statement to make on the effect the Canadian Airline Employees Association announcement of working to rule as of 6 a.m. today will have on Canada's major air line at the height of our tourist season?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no definitive statement on that matter at the moment. We do not really know what the ramifications will be or just how effective the working to rule will be. We are looking into the question in order to ascertain what we can do to alleviate the difficulty which may be experienced by the travelling public, but I do not have anything specific to say at this time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Now that Premier Smallwood has decided to remain as Liberal leader in Newfoundland, will the minister now be able to devote full time to his duties? 29180-7131


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that there are two periods each summer, early July and early September, when there is an extremely heavy load on and demand for the transcontinental trains. To cope with that additional load and at the same time provide for the normal over the year traffic would require a great deal of extra, new equipment. The alternative is to put back into service old equipment. This generally results in complaints by the travelling public. The peak seems to be over for the start of this summer but the problem will arise later in the year. I believe the railways would be prepared to put on some of the older equipment if the public understands that the service will not be up to the normal level.


Mr. Alexander:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house that he win take back to the railway officials the suggestion that notwithstanding the fact there may be some objection to old rolling stock being used this can be done to alleviate the situation, and would he have the railways advertise this fact to the travelling public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the nature of the representation I propose to make to the railways.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister today tabled a communication from the High Commissioner in Lagos, presumably referring to a Canadian offer to provide inspectors for mercy flights. Will he tell the house whether the High Commissioner's communication indicates that the Nigerian federal government is willing to accept the Canadian proposal without crippling conditions?
July 16, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I ought to correct the first part of the statement made by the hon. member. What 1 tabled today was in response to a question from the hon. member for York South. He asked me to table a report we had received about the statement alleged to have been made by Brigadier Hamilton, which has nothing to do with this question.
In answer to the hon. member's question, we have had no direct response. We do understand, however, that the conversations now going on between the International Red Cross and the government in Lagos are proceeding on a somewhat better basis. Conditions have improved to some extent, and we are still hoping for the best.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I have given him notice of it. It is prompted by a statement by a Mr. Charles MacCulloch with reference to the takeover by the government, through the Cape Breton Development Corporation, of Dominion Coal Company. Mr. MacCulloch is quoted as saying:
We feel the government has been dragging its feet on the matter, and quite deliberately, so we're prepared to take it to court.
I ask the minister whether this assertion is correct. I ask, in addition, whether this corporation has in the past ever dragged its feet or evaded its responsibilities?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the Department of Justice that they are still assessing the properties of Dominion Coal Company and there have been no undue delays. Of course, the government is not ready to accept all the claims made by the shareholders. If they want to take this matter to court, it is up to them, but we will not accept any threat from Dominion Coal.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It is prompted by widespread complaints, especially from the

Toronto area, concerning excessive delays in the transmission of telegrams and cables by the C.N.-C.P. group. Will the minister, through the C.N. or otherwise, undertake to have this obviously serious matter investigated?
Kon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport): Yes, Mr. Speaker.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister did not include in his formal western itinerary a visit to even a single Indian reservation, would the Acting Prime Minister inform the house whether the itinerary has been adjusted to include such a visit in order that the Indian people may meet with the Prime Minister and, if not, why not?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my recollection from what I have seen of the Prime Minister's itinerary is that he is getting the views of the Indian people directly from the Indians.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to answer my questions taken as notice yesterday? To be precise, can the minister say what reply has been made to the Canadian Airline Pilots Association brief, which suggested that a national flight safety committee should be established? Can the minister also say whether the Department of Transport has any plans to form a flight safety committee, either internally or at the external, national level?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with the pilots association within a short time. With regard to the question of a flight safety committee, if it turns out to be the most appropriate forum with which to achieve the results the pilots are advocating, we will be quite prepared to consider it. I hope we can resolve this matter satisfactorily in a short time. Incidentally, the hon. member did not reiterate the question asked yesterday
July 16, 1969

with regard to whether there are financial considerations. There are none.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to remind hon. members that we have only two or three minutes before the end of the question period. Therefore I ask the co-operation of hon. members in asking short questions and making short replies.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he had been informed that an investigation had been made by the United States Department of Justice into the paper industry. The minister replied that he had heard of a grand jury hearing in New York. I now ask the minister whether he has a report to make in this respect.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have made further inquiries, as I told the hon. member privately, and have every reason to believe that the answer I gave on Thursday last was correct. I am informed that a subpoena was issued by the United States Department of Justice against Domtar Incorporated, which is a United States company, and that no subpoena was issued against the Canadian company.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I have given him notice of it. Can the minister advise when he proposes to have the omnibus Criminal Code amendments proclaimed, and will they all be proclaimed at once or at different times?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. Section 11 of the amendments to the Criminal Code relating to race tracks under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture was proclaimed by Order in Council June 27, taking effect on July 1. Aside from that, we hope to proclaim the major part of the Criminal Code amendments some time in August. We have had discussions with the Attorneys General of all provinces relating to certain aspects of the
Procedure and Organization amendments which will involve the administrative responsibilities of the provinces. I refer particularly to the drinking and driving aspects of the amendments, the licensing of firearms, licensing of lotteries and some other matters. When the Order in Council is passed I will ensure that the Canadian people and the law enforcement officers across the country receive ample notice of the proclamation of this bill.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has given a much higher priority to western Canada than to the rules debate, will the government and the Acting Prime Minister support the Prime Minister by allowing an emergency debate on the crisis in western Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: If the hon. gentleman agreed with my colleague the government house leader, he would bring the rules debate to a vote and we could then go on with other urgent business.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Acting Prime Minister not recognize the fact I am agreeing with the Prime Minister and am asking for support for him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, July 15, 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).
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, for the next few minutes, I would like to call the attention of the house to the fact that the proposal of the President
July 16, 1969

Procedure and Organization of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) concerning rule 75c meets neither the views of the hon. members of the opposition nor those of the people. Indeed public opinion is beginning to realize that hon. members of the opposition are absolutely right.
We are receiving from all over messages encouraging us to continue the fight, and to attempt to make the government understand the soundness of our claims which are, for all practical purposes, those of the Canadian people.
Several dailies have even published articles dealing with the proposal of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I have here an article written by Claude Ryan, in yesterday's Le Devoir, dealing with the proposed rule 75c. It is interesting to note that Mr. Claude Ryan is in complete agreement with the opposition in regard to the proposal of the President of the Privy Council, and in my view he is even encouraging the opposition to keep on fighting.
Here is what Mr. Claude Ryan said in his editorial of July 15, and I quote:
Further to his strong statement made on this subject in the House of Commons last Thursday, Mr. Robert Stanfield reiterated yesterday his firm determination to fight to the finish against the proposed changes to the Standing Orders, which appear on this page.
The debate on that matter has taken up a good part of the time of the house for some fifteen days. Now, it is obvious that the new proposal (especially rule 75c) is only a finer redrafting of another proposal-rule 16a-which incurred last December the proper censure of parliament and public opinion. Consequently, it deserves exactly the same fate as its unfortunate predecessor.
Mr. Claude Ryan is unequivocally blaming the new attempt of the President of the Privy Council who would like to reinstate standing order 16a repudiated last December.
Further, in his editorial, Mr. Claude Ryan stated, and I quote:
-Let us note by the way that standing order 75b rests on the principle of agreements reached "by a majority of the representatives of the several parties" and does not provide any special status for the government party. Was it done on purpose or was it an oversight on the part of the government? Anyway, the leader of the government in the house, Mr. Donald Macdonald, has made in this connection an intolerable misuse of authority by trying, through a government motion, to alter the text of the rule in obvious contempt of the will of one of the house committees. Last Tuesday, Mr. Macdonald was forced to yield on that point and he had to give priority to the committee report. But his attitude showed in an alarming way how he considers relations between the government and the house.

Mr. Speaker, opposition members are not the only ones to criticize the approach of the President of the Privy Council, and to think that he is being arrogant; newspapermen are also beginning to believe that we are right and they support us in our present campaign. I continue the quotation:
Notwithstanding their objective value, proposed Standing Orders 75a and 75b unfortunately lose all their meaning when flanked by rule 75c which derives from a very different inspiration.
The first two rules are based on the principle of the fundamental equality of the parties concerned and of their ability to agree freely on procedural matters.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Rule 75c, on the contrary, proceeds from the philosophy of arbitration by an authority, which, in that case, is nothing else than the majority party. That looks like, as stated in the house by Mr. Knowles, a negotiation in which one of the parties, while recognizing itself equal to the others, would secure the right of being able to impose on them compulsory arbitration.
This is what Mr. Claude Ryan, an editorialist whose competence is acknowledged throughout the country, thinks of the proposal of the President of the Privy Council.
In his article, Mr. Ryan writes also the following:
Beyond the stands that are opposed, a further matter is of interest. Why did the government choose to revive at this time a proposal which was clearly defeated in December last and which since that time has made no progress in the public opinion?
One argument could have justified the government's attitude, the one he would have had if these last months the opposition parties had indulged in sterile filibustering. But according to numerous observers, it is the opposite which took place. Thanks to the reasonable co-operation of the various parties, the Commons have been operating at a much improved speed for the last few months. In many case, there was agreement to limit considerably the duration of certain debates.
Not only are we the only ones, Mr. Speaker, to be able to say that we reached agreement, but many newspapers recognize that fact. In general, they admit that under our leader (Mr. Stanfield), we have given much proof of our sincere desire to improve and speed up the way things are done in the house. As members of the opposition in this house, we have a mandate and an obligation towards the population.
We do not make representations to the house only in the interest of the opposition, but because we are much concerned with the best interests of the Canadian people. I think it is high time for the hon. members opposite, for the government and for the members of
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
the Privy Council to stop being as arrogant as they have been up to now and to understand at last that what we are asking tor is quite reasonable.
We will not suffer being reduced to silence by the wishes of a couple of ministers. We do not want the public to be deprived of their voice in the House of Commons through their representatives, which, Mr. Speaker, does not apply to opposition members alone. As a matter of fact, while silencing opposition members, the measure will have the same effect on hon. members opposite. I do not understand the fact that the backbenchers on the other side of the house do not have anything to say on occasion to safeguard their constituents' interests.
I appeal to my friends opposite, the backbenchers. I plead with them to do everything they can to make the frontbenchers of their party understand that the national interest is at stake, that the best interests of democracy are at stake, so that we may, in the house, at any time, express the aspirations of our constituents.
Mr. Ryan also said, and I quote:
The government, therefore, did not have, during this session, any serious reasons to complain against obstructionists tactics from the opposition parties.
As a matter of fact, there was only one such case, and that was the omnibus bill, of which the members of the Ralliement creditiste unduly delayed passage. But that case does not, by itself, justify introducing a rule such as 75c.
The government could have taken advantage of the favourable conditions prevailing to increase co-operation between the free men who make up Parliament. Instead, it chose to propose a rule which would have the effect of changing parliament into a college. Unacceptable in principle, such an attitude betrays, in practice, a deplorable disregard for the human factor, without which the most promising technical schemes are doomed to failure.
Hon. members across the floor would be well-advised to give to those comments all the consideration required, having regard to the gravity of the situation.
Since we are short of time, let me only mention the title of some other articles that have been published concerning the proposed motion of the President of the Privy Council.
In the Montreal-Matin of Thursday, July 10, Mr. Clement Brown, in an article entitled "Unfortunate Stubbornness" said that the Trudeau government will not increase its prestige by forcing adoption of said 75c.
And in the Ottawa Citizen of July 4, one could read an article under this heading:
(English]
"Rights imperilled. Closure rule is too drastic".
Procedure and Organization [Translation]
In The Gazette, on July 14, there was this heading:

"Compromise needed in rules debate".

And in that article one could read the following paragraph:

The government would be unwise to insist on its proposed rule 75c. If this rule is adopted, it would give any government with a majority the power to limit debate at any time. This is a drastic power. And it is needless.

Further, one could read and I quote: [English]
If the government is really seeking the power to limit debates, surely rule 75b would be sufficient. Why proceed to the still more drastic provisions of rule 75c?
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we are only asking for something reasonable. We are asking for the possibility to make ourselves heard as often as circumstances compel us to do so, as representatives of the people, in order to express their views.
I do hope that members opposite will take in hand the destiny of this parliament and will not do anything to reduce the importance of the debates in this house. If hon. members are to be deprived of their right to speak, under Standing Order 75c, this will be a very sad day indeed. Such a day will come when the government because it has the majority, reduces to silence the representatives of the people.
I hope that hon. members-the new-comers especially-on the other side of the house will join us and oppose the voice of reason to the arrogance of those who sit in the front benches of the Liberal party.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, about two days ago one speaker on the other side of the house who is here now, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), indicated that one of the reforms that might be very effective in this house would be a reduction in the time used to make speeches. Certainly I, along with other members of the house, was very interested in this aspect of his remarks. This speech was
July 16, 1939

Procedure and Organization one of the most absorbing that I have heard from him. Incidentally, I noted at the time that he took 40 minutes to convey that message. I will undertake to say what I have to say today in a shorter period of time.
During the period 1962 to 1968, the government of Canada was formed by a minority party in this house. During this period many changes were made in the practices and procedures of the house. In many respects the proposal that we have before us today is a product of the developments during a long period of minority government. Instead of two major parties we now have four parties. The key to the proposed rules changes that are before us, I contend, is the substitution of a new doctrine, the doctrine of equality of parties for that of equality of members.
The objective of rules changes that must be made and are being made in this house, Mr. Speaker, must be to strike a careful balance between the very necessary right of the opposition to call to the attention of the public any possible errors, mistakes or unwise provisions in government legislation, and the undoubted right of the majority to bring its measures Ibefore the house and have a decision made within a reasonable period of time.


John Gilbert: No one has been stopping the government.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The issue before us clearly and simply is one of programming government business. Our Committee on Procedure and Organization was instructed by this house on December 20 last to consider again a rule which had been brought forward in the form of 16a. A number of objections were taken by hon. members of the house at that time. The rules were considered in committee and the committee report contained a proposal for three separate rules.
The first of these, 75a, provides that when there is agreement among all the parties in this house, a motion to allot time may be moved. Rule 75b carries this one step further. It provides that when a majority of three of the four parties represented in this house, including that of the government-since obviously a minister of the government will be proposing the motion-have come to an agreement a motion for time allocation may be placed before the house. These two rules work on the basis of agreement. Where there is agreement, an order to limit debate may follow.
The reason for the prolongation of this debate arises as a result of the government's
IMr. Francis.]
concern that proposed rules 75a and 75b, without adequate safeguards, would lead to the denial of the principle that the majority under democracy has a right to put its measures before the house for decision and have the decision made within a reasonable period of time. Why is rule 75c needed, Mr. Speaker? I should like to make three basic points at this time, but of course I shall offer little that is new since, in a debate that has gone on this long, most points have been fully covered.
People say, for example, that we have rule 33, the closure rule. Why do we not use it? My simple answer is to point to what happened during the report stage when the Criminal Code amendment was before the house. Under the new rules of the House of Commons there is unlimited right to amend at the report stage of a bill, and properly so. Originally 44 amendments were proposed, being consolidated to 30 after Mr. Speaker had made his rulings. Application of the closure rule would have meant that each amendment would have had to be considered for closure, an obvious impossibility under the circumstances since it would involve a disproportionate amount of the time of the house. Those amendments were introduced as a result of the change in committee procedure which permits an unlimited number of amendments to be adopted for consideration at the report stage in the house. Under those circumstances, the application of the closure rule would have been almost impossible. The simple application of closure will not serve as a means of allocating time effectively.
We then come to the other situation to which the government takes exception. The representatives of the N.D.P. on the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization argued their case in this regard very effectively. Section 49 of the British North America Act says that questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices. I, and hon. members on this side of the house, contend that rules 75a and 75b alone, and without any further safeguards, would veto the ability of the government, even if it had the support of the official opposition party, to bring measures before the house and have them dealt with within a reasonable period of time. If one of the two smaller parties in this house digs in on any important question, the other small party will be in an absolutely key position. It will be in possession of a veto because of its right to unlimited filibuster. That is the basic defect of having rules 75a and 75b stand alone, without additional safeguards.
July 16, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	11293
Procedure and Organization
I hear hon. members on the other side say- It has been very difficult to get these matters ing, "But this has been a very reasonable referred to committees. They stay on the parliament up to this point." Perhaps hon. order paper and are not dealt with.
members are not quite so reasonable now, after the somewhat protracted debate. As I say, if one of the two parties in this house digs in its heels, it will give the other small party the power to veto and thwart the will of the democratically elected majority of the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
just what have we thwarted?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Fundy-Boyal (Mr. Fairweather) said in effect, at page 10987 of Hansard, that there is nothing left on the order paper and that everything that had to be done has been done.
I have been looking at the order paper, Mr. Speaker, and I see there item 61, second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts of Bill C-179, to do with broadcasting. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal said the minister is not prepared to move forward with this item. He is mistaken. The minister would be only too delighted to move ahead with this legislation.


Mr. Peters:: Go ahead. We will not stop you.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I think hon. members of this house will agree that for a long time items have been left on the order paper.


An hon. Member:: We will pass that one.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am looking at item 80, second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-198, an act to amend the Canada Corporations Act and other statutory provisions related to the subject matter of certain of those amendments. I know the hon. member for Fundy-Royal will disagree with me, since he said the minister is not prepared to proceed with this, but the minister is. Underneath that is item 81, which is very important. This relates to Bill C-200, an act respecting the expropriation of land. The matter is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and it is on the order paper because this house has not yet seen fit to deal with it. Then, there is item 85 in the name of the Minister of Finance, items Nos. 87 and 88 also in the name of the Minister of Finance, and a number of other items which represent efforts to reform private members hour and to provide for a means of disposing of cases which have merit.
Then we have item 92 in the name of the Minister of Justice. This item relates to a bill to amend the Criminal Code and deals with hate literature. Does the hon. member for Fundy-Royal say that legislation dealing with hate literature is of no consequence and the fact that it has not been dealt with in this session does not matter?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the hon. member permit a question. Since the government may call any item it chooses when Mr. Speaker calls orders of the day, will the hon. member explain why the government would sooner indulge in this protracted debate than call these important items?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question by developing my argument. Item No. 96 relates to a bill respecting investment companies. Neither items 97 nor 98 have been acted upon. Unless the rules are amended there will be at all times, as the government develops its program and as the house extends its sittings, measures on the order paper to be brought forward. There is a need to deal with these items and a need to come to grips with the government's program. If rules 75a and 75b were allowed to stand alone, without adequate safeguards, either of the small opposition parties would have the power of veto to thwart the rights of the democratically elected majority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who vetoed the pensions of retired civil servants?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member, with his permission.
Since the legislative program, according to the hon. member for Ottawa West, is very heavy, does he not agree that the government should impose Standing Order 33, which is of the same nature as rule 75c, so that we can put an end to this futile debate and move on to the legislative program?
COMMONS DEBATES	July 16, 1969
Procedure and Organization


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the government is obliged to present to the house the legislation we have to adopt. But to make sure that we can pass laws, I believe we must first settle the problem concerning the rules of the house.

The basic problem is allocation of time. One of the other devices available to hon. members of the opposition under the new rules we have adopted as we are moving forward to that careful balance between the rights of the opposition and the rights of the government is the use of alloted days for the opposition. There are 25 of these days now provided during a session. Hon. members of the opposition are perfectly free to choose the subjects for debate on these days. Therefore, if they feel there is any abuse or any provision of any legislation which in their opinion should not be passed or has been wrongly presented to the house, or if they feel any measure is being adopted which in their opinion is not in the public interest, they have this additional means by which they can bring about a debate in the House of Commons in order to focus the attention of the public, the newspapers and all the organs of public opinion on these questions. They have this means of safeguarding democratic rights.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would permit a question I should like to ask whether in fact the allotted days are a substitute for the old supply motion opportunities of the opposition rather than additional opportunities as he suggested.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of questions from the other side of the house which raise fundamental problems which are not easily or quickly answerable by anyone in this house. In attempting to establish new rules there is a desire to balance two things, the rights of the opposition and the rights of the government. The opposition should have the right to bring matters to the attention of the newspapers and the public which they think are wrong or are against the public interest. Against this, we must adopt measures to expedite the handling of government business and permit some reasonable allocation of time.
Among the innovations are the supply motions, the reference of estimates to the committee and the debate in committee instead of in the house. It is for hon. members to judge the extent to which these innovations are successful. We might note that in other 
houses, such as the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster supply is not even referred to committee any more. I believe it is just a matter of tabling and no debate. If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) is of the opinion that something has been lost by way of democratic rights in this house, there are avenues open to him to express his opinion and seek to convince other members of this house.
Our rules are changing. We are seeking to balance the obligations of the government to program time against the democratic rights of the opposition in the house. In my opinion, and in the opinion of hon. members on this side of the house, the combination of 75a and 75b is not a sufficient safeguard for a government or for that matter for a party which has a reasonable prospect of having that obligation. These two rules if adopted in their present form in my opinion suffer from a grave difficulty. If one of the opposition parties should object to any one government measure it could place the other two opposition parties in a key position, the control of the house. In the two smaller opposition parties there are 36 members combined. I do not believe that a group that size, as opposed to the 226 members in the other two parties, should have the opportunity to veto and hold up government business. This opportunity should not be granted and, in my opinion, should not be encompassed in the rules of this house.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the hon. member. I wonder whether in effect he is suggesting that if agreement were reached to drop from the proposed Standing Orders 75b he would also agree to the dropping of 75c which would leave only 75a.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are matters which could be discussed along the lines the hon. member has suggested. However, I am not able to say what the position of the party to which I belong would be.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Procedure and Organization Mr. Rock said the apathy of Canadians in general over the proposed debate limiting rule has been "appalling" and now it looks as though the matter may be settled by closure.
"It is time we did something about it" he said.
It is not much wonder that students are alarmed. One can become alarmed sitting in this chamber because we are not even getting this feeling across the chamber to the government members. The students suggest it is about time we did something about this proposal. The article then continues:
"We didn't start earlier on this thing because we didn't think there was the slightest possibility the rule would ever pass."
The students have set up an organization called "Students for Free Parliament" to direct the crosscountry protest effort.
"The least we can hope for is postponement of a Commons vote on the rule until fall to give people more time to think about it."
In Ottawa the petition will be circulated on both U of O and Carleton university campuses. Write-in signatures will also be accepted if mailed to students council within the next few days.
I have a high regard for students. They value liberty. They are studying history and political science. They know the facts. When the Prime Minister suggested this rule change last December, he was just using it as a lever.
Let us look at the editorial page of today's Ottawa Journal in an attempt to find out what this man is trying to do with parliament. The editorial reads:
Eclectic is an interesting word-
Apparently this is a reference to an article in the New Yorker magazine in which the Prime Minister was quoted as describing himself as "very eclectic". Apparently this is a new word, but what does it mean? The editorial then goes on to quote what the Prime Minister said:
"I bet many people in my position have read more than I have in the field of history and economics. I have probably read more Dostoevsky, Stendahl and Tolstoy than the average statesman and less of Keynes, Mill and Marx."
Eclectic it is; but right now his critics say we need a little more Keynes and a little less Stendahl.
One begins to wonder whether sophism is at work again. Is it fair to assume that the Prime Minister is reacting in the same way he did last December? Perhaps for reasons of sophism he wants this closure rule adopted in order that he can put through other measures he could not get through otherwise. Perhaps this involves a matter of philosophy, whereas we are the masters of this house. We must assume that sophism is at work again. What will this do to parliament?

Procedure and Organization
Some 704 years ago Simon de Montfort called the first parliament together. It was made up of barons, nobles and knights. It was not made up of the common people like the members of this house. It was made up of members of the upper class who were in revolt against the King's Henchmen. Simon de Montfort called that parliament together and down through the years we have developed a democratic parliamentary system. Kings and Queens have lost their heads during the process. People have been burned at the stake, and rulers have been destroyed.
One could get emotional about this whole thing, but we must remember we were handed this heritage; we did not develop it. Down through the years principles, rules and regulations have been fought for and put into our parliamentary system. I think of the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. They have been adopted to build up this system. One can go to the corridor of the sixth floor in this building and observe some mementos of history there, from the first Prime Minister to the present covering over 300 years of history.
When parliament was formed there was no time limit in respect of debate, and that was long before the 19th century. Closure was never heard of until the Irish nationalists, of the end of the last century by prolonging debate in the house, tried to destroy parliament. We did not hear of closure in this house until this century. The rules have been changed in this house from those which existed in earlier days. Let us look back over the records.
On more than one occasion the house sat all night. We did not have many rules or regulations in those days and a member could speak as long as he wished. It was not unusual for Tupper, Sifton and Blake to talk for several hours in this house, and all of them have a record of at least 9 hours. It was not until 1902 when Lord Balfour said something must be done to limit debate in the British House of Commons that closure was introduced. He suggested this to end the long-winded debates that were taking place in Parliament. It was not until then that people started to think about rules and regulations.
In 1906, under the leadership of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, this house began to refine and revise our rules and regulations. Down through the years they have been revised and time limits have been adopted. Now, an hon. member can speak for only 40 minutes, without permission to speak further, rather than the previous long hours. We have made great 
DEBATES	July 16, 1969
advances. We must remember that we might reach the point where one further step in the direction of revision may destroy what we have built up over the years.
Let me suggest to the Prime Minister of Canada and other members of the government that we now may have reached a point of parliamentary destruction. If the government wants to adopt another system, it should take us into its confidence. If the government wants our support, it should tell us about this new system. We should know what they intend as a substitute when they destroy our system. If that is not what the government is doing it should tell us what it intends. This government has not been delayed during this session by the people on this side of the house. During this session the government has put through a great deal of legislation. To reiterate closure was never used until the Irish nationalists tried to destroy the British parliament. Closure was used in 1913 in this house for the first time. At that time it was brought in by Borden and the Conservative government. It is interesting to note that Arthur Meighen introduced the bill, and then condemned it. He condemned it because it gave the government too much power. On that occasion Borden did go to Sir Wilfrid Laurier to discuss this issue, and asked for a time limit. He offered to allow him to name the time limit but Laurier would not do this. At that time closure was applied in respect of the naval bill after prolonged debate.
At that time Sir Wilfrid Laurier made a famous statement which has been repeated in this House of Commons by other hon. members including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He said he would rather sit in the opposition without power than have to do what the Tories did at that time with power.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
That is what a great Liberal, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, thought about closure. Closure was used in the Canadian Parliament on six bills, all in this century. It was used in 1917 on the Northern acquisition bill, and the Wartime Elections Act. These bills were brought in by the government of that day, and there was not prolonged discussion in respect of either of them. The next time closure was used was 1926, during the throne speech, debate by Mr. King. If my memory serves me aright, in 1932 Mr. Bennett used closure in connection with the Unemployment Act after only one clause out of four had been studied.
July 16, 1SSS

It is amazing to consider what happens when you give people power and set a precedent in this respect. Twenty-four years later the Liberal party, under Mr. St. Laurent, quoted the precedent that Mr. Bennett had set. This was done in respect of a bill only 3 or 4 clauses of which, out of several, if I am correct in my recollection, had been examined. I have forgotten the exact number of clauses in the bill. In any event, the Liberal government brought in closure at that time. There was no excuse for imposing closure in respect of all these bills because there had not been prolonged debate. It may be said there was probably prolonged debate in respect of three bills, only but I do not believe one could claim there was an abuse of the right of parliament to debate important issues.
A government may believe it is right in saying, "We will stop this nonsense", but human frailty being what it is, its judgment may be wrong. The heat of parliamentary debate can lead one to make faulty judgments. Our fear is that if the government is given that power, they will use it.
The last time closure was used by the government of Mr. St. Laurent was 1956. Mr. Harris, the minister of finance at that time, in a radio address about a week later said that closure was brought in only if, first, the government had a timetable it wanted to keep- he was not concerned about the rest of parliament-and, second, if the government wanted to cut off prolonged debate.
There are in the house many young, capable members. Some of them have not been here very long and have not the experience of other hon. members. I hope they will not fall for the reasons given by the government for imposing closure, because the backbenchers are the ones who will suffer. These decisions are made by the members on the front benches, but the backbenchers will suffer. As the leader of the New Democratic party pointed out so ably every time the rules have been amended it has had the effect of cramping the opportunity of backbenchers to speak.
This has been proven over the years. When our rules have been changed, the ability of backbenchers to adequately represent their constituencies has been impaired. The leader of the New Democratic party also pointed out in his able fashion that backbenchers will never have the opportunity to speak if this closure rule is passed. The leaders of the various parties will speak on legislation, and that will be it. I ask, Mr. Speaker: If this is
Procedure and Organization to be the situation, why are backbenchers brought here? Why not let the executive run the country? Why be burdened with the great expense involved in running parliament? Is this what the Prime Minister has in mind, namely, allowing the executive to run the country? These are questions we have to ask ourselves. They are important questions.
If past governments were able, in retrospect, to reconsider the imposition of closure, I am sure they would not have used it. This is the seriousness of the situation. The Liberals say they were wrong in using it in 1956. I remember Jack Pickersgill. Don't think he was not a clever fellow. I have heard the Four Horsemen, Mr. Chevrier, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Martin and Mr. Pearson, day after day in the question period speak for as long as they were allowed. At that time the question period ran over an hour on many occasions. They were talking about the price of eggs, butter, and so on, and we had a daily diet on the question of unemployment. They even had their own Bureau of statistics. They brought newspaper clippings into the chamber and read them; then they asked, "What does the minister say about that?" They read openly from pieces of paper and asked questions based on them.
There is no doubt that Mr. Pickersgill was clever. He got the transport portfolio and then fixed up a job for himself which was to his liking. You cannot say a man like that is not clever; if anybody does, there is something wrong with his thinking. Some of the ministers across the way were here at that time. Mr. Pickersgill said there was something wrong with the senses of any government that would dare to bring in closure; no government would impose it in the future. One can only conclude that this government has not done its homework; it has not looked at history. One should always go back to history upon which to base ground rules; then you should go ahead and build on those ground rules. We in the house have been handed a great heritage. We have copied the Mother of Parliaments. Westminster is the Mother of Parliaments wherever democracy rules in the world. We have been handed this heritage unsullied, and we must protect it. It was handed to us to protect and preserve. I wonder how many of us realize this. I am not happy about some of the things the government has done. To give it the power of closure in this way would be putting another axe in its hands.
11298	COMMONS
Procedure and Organization
I shall now refer to the committees system. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) is in his seat, and it is very appropriate that he is. I want to say a few words about him. I sat on the drug prices committee. The committee asked for witnesses to be called. They never were called, some experts wrote a letter to the committee, asking to appear. Strictly speaking, they should have appeared before us. Witnesses were sent an invitation to attend, but the invitation was so worded that they could not possibly appear before us. The invitation told them not to come, but at the same time invited them to attend.
The hon. member for York East told us that no amendments were permitted in committees. He said that government members on committees did not change things because they had their orders. This is what happened in the drug prices committee. Not one amendment was accepted. The legislation came back to the house without amendment although there was a great deal of criticism in committee. The Liberals were silent on that occasion. Hon. members can read this in Hansard. Not one Liberal member raised objection, although they were in the house to voice their opinions and complaints.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
When the members of the other house saw this bill, they said they required expert witnesses because the members in the House of Commons had not done their homework. They called witnesses.
It is very revealing to note that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) did not accept any amendments to the Criminal Code bill from the floor of this house. He said it had been through the committee and we had to protect the committee system. He said that any bill that had gone through a committee should not have changes made to it in this house. How can this government function? Government members receive their orders from the Prime Minister not to make any changes to a bill in a committee. I am not saying this happens in every committee because certain members may not comply with all the orders, but it did apply to that committee. Then, the Minister of Justice said he would not accept any amendments and refused to consider any in the Languages bill.
How can you ever assess how competent this government is because they cast doubt upon themselves. The Minister of Justice said that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) had presented an excellent amendment. The minister spent the dinner hour

DEBATES	July 16, 1969
going over it, but said there were some things in it that possibly we should not consider because they might defeat the purpose of the bill. Ten or fifteen minutes after the Minister of Justice said what a fine amendment it was, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) said it was a terrible amendment; that the member for Crowfoot did not know what he was talking about; that it was such a stupid amendment he could not have read the bill.
How can a cabinet like that function? How can we be expected to have confidence in them? We have been very co-operative with this government. We have allowed legislation to pass. We were nice to them but, now the pay-off is the Guillotine.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: We sat extra hours.


Philip Bernard Rynard: As the hon. member has stated, we even sat extra hours. The government would not divide the omnibus Criminal Code bill. Instead, they penalized the conscience of members and forced them to talk until they were understood. They could have divided this bill, but they refused. What would they do with closure when they would not even divide the omnibus bill to allow certain members who had conscientious feelings about parts of that bill to vote on individual sections? The government is asking for closure, the last thing in the world we want to give them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Philip Bernard Rynard: That is not all, Mr. Speaker. I will now deal with another item. I wish to draw attention to a statement of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford). Every morning the Prime Minister has four chaps in his room to decide what the government is going to do that day. I will not mention their names. They are the "thought factory". They not only lead the cabinet, but lay down the rules about what is going to be done. It is a mystery how those fellows stay together in cabinet. How do they get anywhere with their divisive views? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said the price of beef was too high, boycott it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said the price increase was the greatest thing that could happen, the farmers were entitled to it.
On many occasions I have quoted the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) because I thought his speech was extremely good. He said that if this situation were not sad it would be comic, or something to that effect. That is about the size of it. Are they jokers? Are they playing games or what are
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
they doing? Do they feel we are puppets? I have illustrated the divisions in the cabinet. I do not have to tell hon. members that there were other divisions.
One cabinet minister had to quit because he could not get anywhere with housing. He was forced out. I notice the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) is now holding meetings in the anteroom of parliament. I happened to be there today when he was busy explaining the situation that occurred in the House of Commons. This is what goes on with this government. It gives me a feeling of sadness.
I have a lot of sympathy for members opposite. I do not think they are the kind of fellows who would do this sort of thing. They come from Canadian farmlands and cities. I cannot understand why they are being subjected to the psychological brainwashing which they are receiving from the Prime Minister. I do not understand how they can take this sort of treatment day after day. There are many disagreements in cabinet, yet nobody pays any attention to them. While disagreements are being voiced, the Prime Minister has his group of four each morning to decide what is going to be done. He also has regional offices.
What position do government backbenchers have? I do not say this to be critical, I say it out of sadness; what are we doing to parliament? That is the big question. I say to hon. members that if Canada is to be given the service she deserves, and if hon. members are going to play their part in preserving the democratic institutions that have been handed down in trust to us, they should make their voices heard against the Prime Minister and those who wish to push this folly through and destroy parliament.
Many members opposite come from areas similar to my own. They come from good homes and have been educated in Canadian schools. I expect them to rise in the next few days and say to the Prime Minister of this country, "you cannot do this any longer; you have no purpose; you have no reason. You have not taken parliament into your confidence. Why do you want this rule? What do you want to accomplish? Do you want to destroy parliament? Where are you going? I say to hon. members opposite that in the final analysis they will suffer just as much as we will.


Mr. Paproski:: They will suffer more when the Prime Minister gets back from the west!
Procedure and Organization


Philip Bernard Rynard: Canadian history and the Canadian parliament will suffer. These are the real issues. Closure is not important. When it is necessary to resort to closure, there has been a failure to communicate. There has been a failure to sell the bill of goods they are presenting. This is the problem with this government. There is no need for closure. If communication lines are working, if the bill is good, if the government is a proper salesman, the measure will be accepted by every one on this side. It is as simple as that. No one refuses legislation which is good for the people of Canada.
Over and over again we have asked for the rights of old age pensioners to be respected. That has been pointed out time and again. The government raised the pension 4 per cent while costs have gone up 16 per cent. We have been asking for help for those men who are unable to help themselves. This government has let things run wild. Surely, the economic position of this country is far more important than anything else. Yet the government is trying to push through a proposal that would give them power they do not need and for which there is no reason to ask at the present time. Why did they not take us into their confidence?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite want to say to us in effect: "We want to change parliament and we have some ideas about it. You fellows get elected and we will call you here. Then, following the Speech from the Throne you can go home and an executive council will run the country for the next four years. We will then call you back here and dissolve parliament and have an election". The trouble with that proposition, Mr. Speaker, is that the government might do exactly what it is doing now, bring in closure and stay here forever.
There are some intelligent men across the way. I know there are some good members on the other side. I hope that in the next few days these members will issue an ultimatum to the Prime Minister and demand he stop this nonsense. We have had many trials in our democratic history, but we have yet to suffer at the hands of dictators like Hitler and Mussolini, as have other countries.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't forget Joey Smallwood.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Well, he is far enough away at the moment not to bother us. The interesting thing about democracy is that it always destroys itself from within. Civilizations perish
July 16, 1969

Procedure and Organization from within. I ask members on the other side of the house carefully to consider that statement. Let it not be said that we in this parliament allowed the government to destroy itself. Let it not be said that in the year 1969 we allowed the Prime Minister of Canada to destroy this institution which all of us, when we came here starry-eyed, hoped in some way to strengthen.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), I feel very humble as I stand in my place to participate in this debate. It is with a sad and heavy heart that I do so. I am also shocked and ashamed that some of the senior cabinet ministers have not taken a vital part in this debate. I observe the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) in his seat and wonder why he and others of his colleagues have not persuaded the cabinet, and more especially the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), to bring some sense of co-operation into this debate.
Many Canadians have said that we are suffering physically from the heat and are making a great sacrifice. We may be making a great physical sacrifice, but when we think of the consequences that would flow from the adoption of rule 75c, this is a mere nothing in comparison. We intend not only to suffer physically from the heat but also to apply some political heat in order to bring about some changes to this particular report.
Many of us are making a sacrifice by being away from our families and friends and by not participating in some of the activities and work in our constituencies. But this matters not in view of the serious consequences which would flow from adoption of this report. It is sad that we have reached an impasse on the rules, particularly in regard to the proposed rule 75a, 75b and 75c. We have reached a senseless confrontation which has backed the government and the opposition into their respective corners, that has generated firm convictions, ill-feelings and reminded us of the December impasse on rule 16a.
It has been said, and I repeat, that we would not object to remaining here if we were to discuss some of the serious matters that confront Canada today. During the last few days we have been reminded of the crisis on the farms, and the government's inability to cope with it. We have been reminded of the serious problem of inflation and the increase in the lending rate to chartered banks by the Bank of Canada. We would not

object to staying here to debate such issues as these. Other matters, such as the serious housing shortage, unemployment and high taxes are also of concern to every member of the house. Yet we are in this house today discussing rules 75a, 75b and 75c, and this fact tends to destroy the goodwill that has been built up since the beginning of the session.
I think of some of the tensions and acrimony engendered in this house since I represented the riding of Broadview during the period 1965 to 1968. I refer to tension not only between persons but regarding some of the great issues facing Canada. For example, I recall the tension and acrimony that was generated when the opposition defeated the government on the postal rates increase and also on the imposition of additional personal taxes. In the result, much ill feeling was created between members.
Then in June 1968, the people of Canada spoke and returned to the house a majority government. An attempt was made to improve the procedure and organization of the house by restructuring the committee system and by imposing time limitations on debates like the Speech from the Throne and the budget, and debate on certain bills. Then, to top it all off, a serious attempt was made to apportion the year so that we might have a definite allocation of time for debating certain business of the house.
All of this was done in a spirit of co-operation, and this was very encouraging. The members of the committee on procedure and organization are reasonable and talented men who are sincere and knowledgeable. They contributed much valuable work, and in many areas there was unanimous agreement. But a bomb was exploded in the house by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) when, after general agreement on rule 75a and 75b, he brought forward rule 75c. It is this which has triggered the ill feeling generated since that time. He has taken a stone wall approach and government members have become mere puppets to be counted only as heads in the votes that ensue.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
One looks back to last December and to rule 16a with not too much happiness. I think we all recall the efforts of the opposition to bring about change and how successful we were in making the government realize that it would be a serious mistake to adopt proposed
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
rule 16a. The matter was returned to committee, and we all remember how the chairman of the committee was embarrassed by the treatment afforded him by the President of the Privy Council. The determination and dictatorial attitude of the President of the Privy Council is unbecoming and unworthy of a minister of the Crown.
Some say the government is trying to blackmail the opposition. This session was to end on June 27. One wonders why the government left this vital matter until the end of the session. Did it hope that hon. members would be tired, anxious to go home, and would therefore dispose of this matter? If so, that indicates government thinking. If the government is not trying to blackmail us then, in the alternative, it is showing a tremendous disrespect and disregard for the principles of opposition members. Its actions are degrading parliament.
Consider the lack of a quorum in this house last Thursday, Mr. Speaker. Without the integrity, intelligence and co-operation of Mr. Speaker and his ruling on that important matter, the government would have degraded parliament even more. We were working to rule when the quorum vote was taken. As I recall, many hon. members of this house and many members of the public were annoyed with the employees of Air Canada when those employees worked to rule during the recent difficulties. I recall an Air Canada employee at Malton Airport telling me to check a small handbag, and I recall being annoyed. Yet that employee was merely working to rule, just as we were in this house when an hon. member drew to your attention that there was no quorum. If our post office employees were to work to rule, the chaos in the post office would be greater even than that brought on by the minister.


An hon. Member:: That is not possible.


John Gilbert: Last Friday the Prime Minister made a disgraceful, unworthy and disappointing comment about the conduct of parliament. When I spoke words of welcome to members of the Liberal party on the Friday after the quorum vote, I was greeted in a most unworthy manner. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rose to his feet, even before he had a chance to say a word, the members of the Liberal party made known their feelings of displeasure. On top of that we had to contend with the Prime Minister's schoolboy sauciness when he described this debate as a stupid filibuster and the attitude of opposition
Procedure and Organization members as hypocritical. It is possible that his arrogance and ignorance at that time exceeded that of Mr. C. D. Howe in the 1956 pipeline debate. This government is a dictatorship by a dilettante. His hatchet man is the President of the Privy Council, and the Liberal party members who support him are mere hush-puppies who play little role in this house. The Liberal party needs a man with the convictions and courage of the former hon. member for York-Humber, Mr. Ralph Cowan. He called a spade a spade, and he acted as the conscience of the Liberal party when it abused the exercise of its powers. We need men like Ralph Cowan in this house. More than ever, the Liberals need Ralph Cowan back.


An hon. Member:: Bring back Ralph Cowan.


John Gilbert: The only one remotely like him here is the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) who brought to the attention of hon. members the attitude of the government towards its supporters when they are in committee. His revelation has been very worth while and we only hope that he will be more active in persuading other Liberal party members to stop being mere rubberstamps and to take an active part in the work of this house. When I consider the performance of the portly potentate for High Park (Mr. Deakon), who seems to suffer from mental paralysis when important issues come up, I become disappointed that Ralph Cowan is no longer in the house.
Rule 75c will apply to the backbenchers of all parties and I think the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), who was one of the whiz kids of the Walter Gordon days, who has great experience in economic matters and in matters affecting foreign ownership and who has made a great contribution to our Canadian Indians and Eskimos, ought to remember that. We hope he will take a more active part as a backbencher in the debates of this house. The same goes for the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), who should be taking the lead here when Indian questions are discussed. He seems to be tongue tied. I hope he realizes that if the government adopts rule 75c he will be even more tongue tied.
During the past year we have heard little from the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), who is a former mayor of Toronto and has considerable experience in urban affairs, housing and urban transportation. On numerous occasions he has told the press that
July 16, 1969

Procedure and Organization
he would like to participate in a more active and meaningful way in the debates of this house. Does he not realize that once rule 75c is accepted his opportunities to speak will be very much curtailed?
And why does not the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), who has had great experience in law, not say more about matters like the rehabilitation of criminals, expungement of criminal records, corporal punishment and the like. If he is under restraint now, does he not realize that rule 75c will tighten that restraint? He, too, should take part in debates and he and others like him should resist the adoption of rule 75c.
The government's backbenchers have deafened me with their silence in this debate. They are silent when most matters come before the house and when many matters are referred to committee. I am thinking of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who has had wide experience on Toronto city council and who has the respect of the Italian community; I appeal to him to speak up when matters relating to immigration and to the Italian community of Canada come before the house.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
These are some of the backbenchers for whom I feel sorry and whom I ask to take an active part. If I may be rather poetic I would say, "On Danson, on Givens, on Hopkins, on Otto" to meet some of these important matters. This problem would never have arisen had we had the present Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) as the house leader. He is a man of reason, sympathy and compassion. He exercises those talents in his portfolio as Solicitor General. We never would have had this problem with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) as house leader. When he was house leader he worked well with the other house leaders to formulate timetables which were acceptable to members of the house. The fly in the ointment has been the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). Some members have said disparagingly that he is "Mac the Gag." I really do not believe he has stooped to that position.
The President of the Privy Council is a representative of the riding next to mine. I might say that it is Rosedale, the upper part of which embraces a great many wealthy people and the lower part of which embraces many poor people. I thought he would be really concerned about putting recreational

facilities into Moss Park and would be working toward that end. I thought he would be concerned about housing for the people in the south part of his riding who are suffering from the effects of high interest rates and poor housing. I thought he would be interested in some of the unemployment problems which prevail and that he would co-operate with house leaders to adopt 75a and 75b so that we could move on to a discussion of these particular matters, but that has not been so. Probably he has rightfully earned the tag of "Mac the Gag."
We have heard many speeches from members of the opposition. When one heard the moving speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and the speech by the leader of my party, one could not help but be persuaded that 75c has no place in parliamentary democracy in Canada. When one heard the speech of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), one could not help but be moved. Here we have a member who in his maiden speech said:
-men should be judged not by the colour of their skin nor by the way they light, love or sin, nor by the gods they serve or vintage they drink, but by the quality of thoughts they think.
After hearing the hon. member for Hamilton West last night, one appreciates the way he thinks. He is a man of integrity; he is a man who wants to co-operate with members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Gilbert: His plea seemed to fall on the deaf ears of the backbenchers of the Liberal party who lack the initiative to participate in this debate or take a very active part in their caucus meetings to point out to the President of the Privy Council the error of his ways. We have been fortunate to have a colleague like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a man who is knowledgeable and sincere; a man who has brought to the parliament of Canada the dignity it deserves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Gilbert: To be treated by the Prime Minister in the way he was last Friday does not belittle the hon. member; it belittles the Prime Minister.
I should like to direct my attention in particular to 75a, 75b and 75c. It has been said we need to know our a, b, c's to understand these particular sections. I should like to read section 75a so that we will better understand
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
it. According to Votes and Proceedings for June 20, 75a reads as follows:
When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of ail parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.
I have heard no criticism in respect of 75a. This is one of the rules whereby the house leaders of all parties can act and act advantageously. Rule 75b reads:
When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties, including that of the Government, have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 7(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
I understand that this proposal did have a great deal of discussion in the committee, and is the result of a consensus among committee members. I think I am safe in saying most members of the house are prepared to accept 75a and 75b. There appears to be a slight problem with regard to the determination of what constitutes a majority, but I rely on the wisdom, experience and goodwill that prevails among the members of that committee to bring forward a determination of what constitutes a majority.
It is 75c which is the reason we are here. I shall read 75c:
A Minister of the Crown who from his place In the House at a previous sitting has stated that an *agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee and has given notice at that sitting of his intention so to do may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the

Procedure and Organization consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
This is the section which puts fear in the hearts of the opposition members, and which should put fear into the hearts of thinking members on the government side, because it is a naked power which many of us in this house are not prepared to give to the government. Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote to you, and members of the house, some of the statements I have read which are pertinent to this particular debate:
Power abdicates only under stress of counterpower.
That was said by Martin Buber in "Paths in Utopia" in 1950. This is the reason we in the opposition parties are bringing forward our counter-power to offset the naked power which is sought by the government.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The second quotation is "the greater the powers the more danger of abuse". That statement was made by Edmund Burke in a speech he made at Middlesex in 1771. One would think that this remark could certainly apply to 75c if it were implemented.
Lord Acton, who has been mentioned many times, said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is for these reasons we in the opposition party are not prepared to give the government the power contained in 75c.
During the debate last December in respect of 16a, I received a letter from a radio station in Toronto called CHUM in which an argument against this bill was set forth effectively and persuasively. I should like to ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, while I read parts of this letter:
No government requires absolute power to run this country of ours and CHUM cannot understand why the Trudeau government is insisting on absolute power before getting on with the just society's business.
The government's stubborn insistence on the right to determine in advance how long debates of the nation's business shall run-suggests an impatience with the machinery of democracy.
It is hard to believe that our fantastic Centennial year spirit is being followed up by a government bid for absolute power.
It is also hard to appreciate why the Trudeau government isn't content to make do with the generous majority of seats handed to it in the last election.
Procedure and Organization
Surely 155 seats out of 264 is sufficient for this majority government to handle parliament in a businesslike manner. It can always impose closure -after sufficient debate.
This government does not need the right to cut off debate in advance in order to give the people of our country the just society it has promised. Reconsider, Mr. Prime Minister. Especially in view of the popular opposition to your proposal.
Take the section dealing with your right to cut off debate in advance out of your reform book.
And make no further attempts to arbitrarily impose your government's will on parliament.
This letter from CHUM indicates why we oppose the granting of this naked power the government wants. We have heard much talk about the experience of the United Kingdom, and the President of the Privy Council has risen on many occasions to ask members whether they are knowledgeable of the experience of England and the fact that the allocation of time there is far more strict and stringent. Let me remind the President of the Privy Council of the differences which prevail in the United Kingdom. There are differences in numbers of members, differences in respect of independent chairmen, differences in attitude and differences in tradition. There is nothing wrong with studying the views and procedures as well as the rules of other governments, but you only apply those rules which have relevance to Canada.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), who is chairman of the committee, attempted to bring forth a spirit of cooperation not only in the committee but in the house. He indicated the experience in the United Kingdom, as recorded in Hansard for July 8 at page 10958:
It is estimated that 50 per cent of the business of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom proceeds in accordance with an agreed timetable; that 25 per cent is so uncontentious that it requires the application of no timetable and that of the balance of 25 per cent deemed to be contentious, the majority or a substantial part, is dealt with through the ordinary process of negotiation, with the result that orders allocating time are not the procedures which are usually or habitually employed at Westminster.
We have the statement by the President of the Privy Council that 75c would probably be applied to no more than one per cent of the legislation. Further than that, we have the experience during this session with the passing of the omnibus Criminal Code and languages bills. The only bill the government singles out is the omnibus bill, and it unfairly and unjustly points that finger of guilt at members of the Creditiste party who exercised their right in respect of certain sections. As a member previously said, when you think CMr. Gilbert.]
DEBATES	July IS, 1969
of the many sections and subjects dealt with in the omnibus bill in respect of criminal law you can appreciate the necessity of debating time. One should also appreciate the necessity of members reflecting the views of their constituents in respect of these important subjects.
When one looks at the languages bill one will find there was little criticism, yet that bill is a milestone in respect of bringing forth unity in Canada. Therefore, the debate which took place was both proper and in order. When one thinks of the necessity for 75c during the next session, one can only envisage it being applied to certain matters. It may be applied in respect of the problems of foreign ownership. Suppose we do have a limit introduced in a respect of the Canada Development Corporation. Surely, no hon. member would suggest that we should debate it on the basis of 75c, only allowing about four days for this very complex and important subject.
I felt rather sorry for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton when he made a slip in respect of the ten days of debate rather than the ten days lapse of time. It was only after persuasion by members of the opposition that he corrected himself and said that what he was referring to was the ten days lapse of time. I have heard different members on the government side mention different times. One referred to 30 days and another to two months, as the time period before a bill might be passed.


An hon. Member:: Thirteen sitting days.


John Gilbert: An hon. member suggest 13 sitting days. When you start establishing time limits in respect of important matters you will have an indication of the lack of spirit, good will and co-operation which should prevail among members of the house in connection with debates on these important matters.
When I think of the time limits that may be imposed in respect of taxation changes which have been alluded to, it makes me realize that it is only by a spirit of co-operation that this matter can be properly aired. When I think of the possible new mini-bill the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) may bring forward containing further amendments to the Criminal Code, I cannot believe that problems in respect of bail, the expunging of criminal records and corporal punishment can be properly debated with the time limit changes the government has suggested.
July 16, 1969

Yesterday when I heard the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) talk about the arithmetic of parliament, and observed his attempt to divide the opposition by saying that it should be a majority of the government and the official opposition which should prevail, I realized his inexperience as a result of his short period in the house. This is a man who is interested in the expropriation bill. The debate on that matter should last at least two or three weeks if it is to be properly aired. When one thinks of the legislation in respect of patents one must realize the necessity for the utmost co-operation in dealing with this important matter.
o (4:50 p.m.)
It could be fairly asked: What does the opposition want? It could be simply answered: The opposition wants the amendment to refer this question to the committee to be passed, so that it may delete 75c.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Gilbert: Why do we want this? The answer is that there has been no past need, there is no present need, and there certainly does not appear to be any future need for it. The experience of the past year indicates a necessity for the co-operation of house leaders in allocating a reasonable length of time to debate important matters. The attempt by the government last Friday to bring forward a subamendment to split the opposition was properly dealt with by the Speaker. We, of the opposition parties, will have no part of splitting the opposition on such a vital matter.
The main issue that prevails today is a decision between dictatorship and democracy. When we talk about democracy we are really talking about the persuasive process that should prevail in Canada, whereby representatives of all parts of the country come to this chamber and deal with legislation on the basis of discussion, co-operation and agreement. This is the proper process to be adopted in parliament; consensus should be arrived at. This is why, if we are to continue on the road of democracy, it is highly necessary that rule 75c be deleted in order that we may restore the good will and co-operation that heretofore prevailed this session.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman resumes his seat I wonder whether he would accept a question.


John Gilbert: Certainly.

Procedure and Organization


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member mentioned the British experience. Would he be prepared to accept British standing orders Nos. 31 and 32, which are to be found in Hansard of July 10 at pages 11080 and 11081? Is the hon. member prepared to accept the British system in this respect, in lieu of 75c?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that the hon. member should rise in his place and ask me a question of that nature. I am not sure whether he belongs to the Liberal party or the Liberal Labour party. I am not sure whether he will exercise his right with regard to 75b and say that a majority of the Liberal Labour party will be necessary before we proceed with legislation in the house.
It is absolutely necessary that the members of the committee get together and work out a reasonable compromise with regard to the rules and organization of the house. The insertion into his debate of the standing orders used in the British house is not important; in fact, it is irrelevant. It is important to arrive at a consensus of the members of all parties in the house so that we have a system of rules and orders by which we can abide and with which we agree. If we do this we will restore the friendliness and co-operation that has prevailed this session.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I think at a time when it is estimated that over 500 million people are glued to their television sets watching the Apollo 11 mission, which if successful will probably go down in history as one of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, is hardly the time to assume that there is a great deal of direct interest by the public in what is taking place this afternoon in the House of Commons, or that by speaking on this occasion one is in the spotlight, as it were, of public notice.
The wide effect that electronic communications have had in our lives is illustrated by the story told about a teacher of ten-year-olds who took her class to see the famous painting "Whistler's Mother" and asked them to write a few words about it. One little lad wrote: It seemed it was a picture of an old lady waiting for the repairman to bring back her television set.
I believe we live in an age when we do not give enough time and contemplation to some of the basic things we take for granted. For example, if we wanted to be cold-bloodedly practical it might be more efficient, for the opposition parties, if they could afford it, to
July 16. 1966

Procedure and Organization try to buy a 20-second commercial from Walter Cronkite this afternoon to put in a plug for the importance to minorities of the basic rights we are now discussing.
I rise in this debate because I think we are discussing an extremely important issue. It is not my purpose to be offensive to anyone. If anything I say is offensive, it is inadvertent and unintentional. I hold the view that everyone, no matter how exalted he may be in his own view or the view of any other person, can learn something from somebody else no matter how humble that other person may be.
I believe that a great many people in this house, including myself, still have a great deal to learn about the traditions of parliament, its rules, what they really mean and their significance. I think it is ill-becoming for anyone, no matter how brilliant he may be, to stack up one or two years' experience-I have seen this happen in parliament-five or six years, or even ten or twenty against the accumulated experience of 700 years of parliamentary development under the leadership of the greatest men the English speaking world has known. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is a subject we should consider very carefully.
I wish to speak through you, sir, chiefly to members whose experience in parliament is limited. We should remember that we are a parliament whose collective experience is very short; we have only very few members who have served in this chamber for any length of time. Political life expectancy in this institution has been very short in the last few years. Therefore we should pay particular attention to other authorities who have studied this matter, lived with it and in some cases recorded their thoughts.
It is not my intention to be condescending. I am not in a position to take that attitude. My experience in this chamber is limited. It is true that there are many whose experience is even more limited. We should not think lightly of the responsibilities of being a member of parliament. We hold a great trust. We sometimes think too much of the honour involved, the stimulation of political victory, and so on.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
We should not forget that each of us is here to represent, on the average, almost 70,000 Canadians who have no means of expressing their views on a subject which is perhaps of prime importance to them, namely the type of governmental system they are going to live

under, except through their respective members of parliament. It is our responsibility as members of parliament to serve minorities in our own constituencies. It is our responsibility to represent the people who have voted against us as well as the people who voted for us. It is our duty to speak for them and to represent them in a way which will bring them collectively the best possible government under the best form of government, which I believe to be the democratic form.
If I were to talk to members of parliament who had just been elected, I would recommend to them that the first thing they should do is read some good books on parliament and parliamentary procedure. As a start I would recommend Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. For many distinguished years, Beauchesne served as clerk of this house. I want to quote fairly extensively from Beauchesne, for which I make no apology. On page 16 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, in a general discussion of what parliament means, there is this statement:
We use the words "House of Commons" very often without pausing to reflect upon what those words mean. The word "Commons" means the people. This is the house of the people, sitting on both sides of this house; and on both sides of the Speaker are representatives of every constituency of Canada. Collectively those of us who meet in this Chamber represent all Canadians. That is our responsibility! That is our duty. Our rights are important only to the extent that those rights represent the rights of the people themselves. If the traditional rights of the members of this House are released, limited or arbitrarily curtailed in any way, it is not our rights that are of concern. What is vitally important is that in that curtailment of rights-there is a limitation of the rights- of the people themselves. The freedom that we have here to shape and guide legislation, no matter on which side of the House we may sit, is part of the very freedom which we cherish here in this country of ours. It is here in the House of Commons, to which all the people of Canada must look for just laws properly considered and properly made, that Canadians in every part of Canada must look for the greater part of their freedom and for the assurance of that type of government which will be itself an expression of the freedom which has come down to us through so many generations of sacrifice and of tremendous efforts.
We hear a great deal about the necessity for speed, Mr. Speaker. We hear that it is necessary to have speed in legislation and that we have to get a list of bills as long as your arm through in each session of parliament. I am the first to admit that government is becoming larger and is impinging into many more fields than used to be the case. As a consequence, there is a great deal more parliamentary business than there used to
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
be. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly believe that the theory that the volume of legislation passed by a government is in direct proportion to that government's worth is a complete and fallacious myth. It is the quality, not the quantity of legislation that determines the value of a government and the benefit it may be to the people it governs.
Parliament not only has a responsibility to pass good legislation, but the responsibility to amend or reject bad legislation. In a democracy, that is its most vital responsibility. The notion that because we are living in a modern computer age with instant communication we have to do everything quickly, in less and less time in my opinion does not follow. To hear some people speak, their logic appears to be that the rules of parliament were laid down before the theory of relativity was discovered and therefore they are out of date. They say modern rules of parliament should be such as to expedite the business of parliament at a speed greater than the speed of light. Nothing could be more fallacious.
If we carry through this desperate desire for shorter and shorter debates, more voluminous legislation passed in a shorter period, we arrive at a point of absurdity. We will reach the position where members of parliament will be advised a day or two before parliament is to sit that the legislation the government proposes to consider is deemed to have already been passed and therefore we need not sit at all. We would be in the position of the lady in the limerick:
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was greater than light,
She left home one day,
In a relative way,
And returned home on the previous night.
The government would like to be in the position where, when they think something is right, the shorter the time spent on it the better. If we got to the position where the length of time would be a negative figure, that would be even better. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote again from Beauchesne, page 110:
The mere object of shortening sessions may lead to an undue curtailment of the freedom of speech. The duties of a representative Parliament are too important to be performed in a hurry. No question should be decided until it has been fully discussed. Although some effort ought to be made to economize time, every shade of opinion has the right to find expression and members who desire to give their views should not be prevented from doing so. Canada is a vast country, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. The problems of the West are not those of the East. The viewpoints
Procedure and Organization of members of Parliament from British Columbia and the Prairie Provinces differ from those of Ontario; Ontario differs from Quebec; and Quebec from the Maritime Provinces. For this reason debates in the House are necessarily lengthy. A two-month session, if it is mismanaged, is more wasteful of time than a six-month session during which no time has been lost. Debates have to be free and they must also be relevant. In Parliament every corner of the country is represented and no rule should silence elected representatives when they think they have a message to deliver. Freedom of speech is a sacred principle and if there is a place where it should be fully respected that place is the Parliament of the nation, and it is the Speaker's responsibility to see that this principle is not infringed upon.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Most people without thinking too much about it, glibly equate democracy with the existence of a parliament. Examples that come to mind immediately are of Canada, the United States, Great Britain and France. In each of these countries there is a parliament; therefore, it is assumed there is also a democracy. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it just does not follow that if you have a democracy you have a parliament, or that if you have a parliament you have a democracy. This is tantamount to saying that because all Parisians are Frenchmen, all Frenchmen are Parisians.
There is a parliament of sorts in Russia which does things very expeditiously. The government tells parliament its program for the year and parliament rubberstamps it in a matter, I think, of three or four days. Then, the parliamentarians go home, and that is their role.
I suggest that what determines whether you have a democracy is whether you have an opposition that is free, that has the right to dissent, to expose to public debate the importance of differing points of view, to expose weaknesses in any program proposed by government. This is the keystone of the democratic system. Democracy has flowered when parliamentarians have held mature and enlightened views, when it has been recognized that in electing them to office the public did not want them to be dictators but rather to hold office for a short period as the servants of the people. Governments should never lose sight of the fact that they are elected to be the people's servants and not their masters.
We should remember that the rules and practices of parliament are the possession of the whole house; they are not the government's possession or the prerogative of the government of the day. It is true that in the
July 16, 1969

Procedure and Organization matter of time allocation a minister of the government must move a motion under the rules, but it is not the exclusive right of the government to make rules, or to try to impose on parliament as a whole its view on what the rules should be.
It is true that under the rules the government has certain privileges that are not open to the opposition, such as the introduction of money bills and so on. But, equally validly and truly, the opposition has rights that are not necessarily open to the government. I often hear members, chiefly new members, advancing the plausible but nevertheless invalid argument that the government has been elected and given a mandate by the people to carry out its program and hence the government has the right to make the rules of parliament to suit themselves. No argument could be more fallacious. It is like saying that a football team that won its last game can change the rules to suit itself for the next game. Or it is like saying that the heaviest football team has the right to determine the rules. Or it is like saying that if a lawyer wins a case in court he can determine the court procedure to be used for his next case. All of these examples, of course, make complete nonsense.
May I again at this point quote from Beau-chesne, commencing at the bottom of page 54. I am about to make a fairly long quotation, but I do so without apology since I think this is a summation of some of the most important points that are pertinent to this discussion:
The principle that the majority rules was conceded in section 49 of Magna Carta which reads: "In all those things which are appointed to be done by these twenty-five Barons, if it happen that all the twenty-five have been present and have differed in their opinions about anything, or if some of them who had been summoned would not or could not be present, that which the greater part of those who were present shall have provided and decreed shall be held as firm and as valid as if all the twenty-five had agreed in it."
That is the principle of the convention of the majority having its way in the passage of legislation.
This principle is also enunciated in Section 49 of The British North America Act which reads: "Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote."
(3) In every country attempts have been made to ensure that there shall be some check on the powers of the majority. Lord Bryce said in "Modern Democracies": "That a majority is always right, i.e. that every decision it arrives at by voting is wise not even the most fervent democrat has ever

maintained seeing that popular government consists in the constant effort of a minority to turn itself by methods of persuasion into a majority which will then reverse the action or modify the decisions of the former majority."
Decision by majority is not an absolute and unquestionable principle. "Our constitution, to use Burke's phrase, is something more than a problem in arithmetic." There is no divine right of a mere numerical majority any more than of King's. Majority decision is a measure of convenience essential to the dispatch of business, the result, "of a very particular and special convention, confirmed by long habits of obedience." The idea that a majority, just because it is a majority, is entitled to pass, without full discussion, what legislation it pleases, regardless of the extent of the changes involved or of the intensity of the opposition to them, the idea in fact that majority edicts are the same things as laws, is wholly alien to the spirit of the constitution.
(4) A minority party may question ministers, may criticize but cannot control in the ordinary case a Government with a reasonable large majority. There can be no control of the Executive where the supporters in Parliament are prepared without question to obey the leaders of their party-through the Whips. All that the minority party-the Opposition-can do without support from members of the majority party is to question, inquire and criticize, but whilst this does not amount to control it is an important method of checking abuses of power.
I do not want to give the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) any ideas in this regard.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
With the support of a majority of Members it would be possible for a Cabinet to suspend the sitting of Parliament, have the minority members arrested, withdraw the safeguards of liberty such as Habeas Corpus and freedom of speech, and to establish virtually a dictatorship. All this, too, could be done within the law. It is surprising how few members of the general public appreciate how uncontrolled the Cabinet is where it has the support of a loyal majority in Parliament and that "the supremacy of Parliament" in this sense is absolute and subject to no real safeguards of any kind.
Beauchesne continues:
We may add that the majority of the House of Commons does not always represent the majority of the electors in the country. It often happens that, owing to the redistribution of electoral districts, a party may come out of the general elections with a majority of elected members without having received the majority of the votes given by the electors who went to the polls or whose names are on the electoral lists. That party may form a Cabinet, but the official Opposition together with other anti-ministerial groups, though sitting to the Speaker's left, are the real representatives of the people; and their right to challenge by legitimate means every measure or proceeding sponsored by ministers cannot be disputed. In such cases, when the House divides, members who oppose the Administration may act on behalf of the majority while
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
Government supporters represent the minority of the people of Canada.
That is the position we are in at the present time. Although the government has a comfortable majority in the house, it represents a minority only of the Canadian people. I do not say that to be belligerent or to depreciate the government's electoral victory. I say that because I hope the government will listen to my plea. I plead with the government to pause and to consider what it is doing. They should realize that they have no divine right to govern.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: We heard a great deal about the allocation of time. I have heard it said that we should follow the example of the Mother of Parliaments. That is the example we are admonished to follow. The trouble is that our two situations are not comparable. In many cases comparisons are not valid. The rules under which the U.K. parliament works in many cases have been misinterpreted. There are many reasons, of course, for allocating time, one of them being that there is an increase in government business. Also, the allocation of time idea is attractive to governments because they put through much second grade legislation. Since I have been a member I have seen governments introduce legislation which they have told the people of this country was the paragon of all virtues and must not be changed. Having refused to accept all opposition amendments, the government has been forced, sometimes one year after the original enactment, to bring the measure before the house again to have it amended. Parliament has had to go through the entire process of considering the matter again.
The notion of limitation of time is likely to appeal to those members, and they are mostly new members, who because of inexperience do not know just what parliament is all about. They are not fully conscious, perhaps for four or five years, of the great trust they hold, for the Canadian people. They are custodians of our treasured rights and freedoms and it behooves them to follow in the great traditions of their predecessors who looked on themselves as the servants of the people.
I appreciate the many difficulties facing governments. Often when a government is elected it has among its supporters many inexperienced members who may misinterpret the significance of their election. They have the impression, mistakenly, that they
Procedure and Organization have been elected because their electors think they can do no wrong. Nothing is further from the truth. Having been a member of a government I realize, in retrospect, how difficult it was for a small group of 50 experienced parliamentarians to lead and set an example for 150 new members who had no experience of this game. And this process has been gone through several times in the past. As a result, many members do not realize why the rules of this house, which are based on tradition, are as they are.
Since the election of this government we have changed the rules drastically. The parties making up the opposition, and private members on both sides of the house, have forfeited vast numbers of rights which our predecessors enjoyed. For example, estimates are no longer considered in this chamber but are considered in committee. That is a tremendous concession on the part of the opposition, and it should give weeks of additional time for the government to bring forward government business.
Why does the government demand these new, extraordinary and arbitrary powers to limit debate? 1 am, of course, referring to the effect of proposed rule 75c. What legislation can the government possibly have in mind that requires this severe restriction on our freedom of speech? Why does the government need this gag? What legislation would a right thinking government wish to introduce that would require a rule like 75c to force it through? I have racked my brains about this, and I cannot imagine what the legislation could be. Of course, since the government this year permitted homosexuality under certain conditions it may wish next year to make it compulsory-that is about as far as my imagination extends. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, why does the government require this power?
My experience has always been that when an opposition debates for a long period any measure that the government has brought in, and sometimes such debates can go on for many weeks, the opposition has usually been right. Experience, time and again, has proved that in these cases the opposition has been right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: Therefore it should be an axiom that no government ought to introduce legislation that will need to be forced through the house by the application of a rule that limits the freedom of speech. Time has shown that the government's attitude in the pipe line
July 1G, 1969

Procedure and Organization debate was wrong. I remember that when we were in government we proposed to give the Minister of National Revenue power to decide by himself the classes and kinds of certain articles manufactured in Canada. The opposition debated that proposal I believe for only three weeks. I believe the opposition of that day was right. I believed it at the time, although I did not wish to admit it. The result was the Senate refused to pass that legislation, and it was never implemented. The smart thing for the government would have been to have never made such a proposal to parliament, because I believe it was wrong.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I support the amendment which is before us because its intent is to eliminate 75c. The amendment reads as follows:
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.
That amendment has been put forward in good faith, in the belief that it is a reasonable proposition. I would appeal to the government to consider the acceptance of this amendment. If they should find that unpalla-table I have an even simpler suggestion by which the government could get itself and us out of this log jam. I suggest that the government just move the adjournment of this debate and then adjourn the house until October. In the meantime, the government would have an opportunity to do some thinking about this situation. There is no urgency about this rule. If we should adjourn for the summer, which I understand is the idea after this motion is passed, the rule could not be operative in any event until parliament sits again in October. There would be no parliament on which to impose it. I could see more logic in this situation if what we were involved in were legislation which would come into effect at a certain deadline during the summer, such as the business of supply or something like that. This rule, however, will be useless until we return in October. As I said, there will be nobody here to impose it. I should like the house leader and members of the government to think this over and take some advice from experienced members and others, not necessarily on this side of the house.
I suggest that the government take some advice from their own caucus. If the President of the Privy Council does not feel it appropriate to seek advice of this nature from 
his own colleagues, then I wish he would ask someone for advice. I would like to feel he had at least asked his wife about the wisdom of this procedure. Then he could perhaps think it over and in the fall come back with something more sensible.
A great many comparisons have been made between the situation here and the allocation of time in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the pressure under which parliament operates is even much greater than it is here for obvious reasons. Therefore the pressure for allocation of time is even greater. That does not mean that the allocation of time is good. It is something which should be avoided if at all possible. In the United Kingdom, however, it is more difficult to avoid, because they have a unitary system of government. Roughly speaking, the parliament of the United Kingdom deals with all the things with which we deal and many other things in addition. The Parliament of the United Kingdom deals with everything the ten legislatures in Canada deal with in the course of a year, and deals with these things in relation to more than twice the population. In addition, in the United Kingdom there are more nationalized industries.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the house for giving me unanimous consent. I shall wind up my remarks quickly.
I was making the point that the two situations are not comparable. Canada is a diverse country with great distances, many ethnic groups, many regions, two languages and perhaps more important than anything else so far as the population being conscious of what is happening in parliament is concerned, in Canada we do not have a truly national press. Any press which aspires to be a national press generally speaking is not even located in Ottawa, the capital city. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom there is a national press located right at the heart of parliament and anything which takes place in the House of Commons is common knowledge throughout the United Kingdom almost immediately.
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
I should like to make one more reference to the situation in the United Kingdom. The position of the Speaker-and I am not speaking of personalities-is much stronger. He is appointed for life or until he wishes to retire. He may be a person who formally was associated with an opposition party. He appoints to the business committee men whom he knows to be objective and as nonpartisan as possible. The business committee is responsible to the Speaker. The committee is composed of a chairman and members appointed by the Speaker. In that way, in the United Kingdom the Speaker has been given by parliament the undoubted power to act as referee, as it were, in contentious situations to a much greater degree than is the case here. This is an important matter. I wish to point out, for example, that not only does the Speaker have special powers but also, for instance, in relation to the closure rule when a member rises to propose a motion of closure the Speaker decides right there and then whether or not it is appropriate that the motion be put. If he does not think it is appropriate, because he believes the rights of minorities are being infringed, then he does not accept it at that time and allows the debate to proceed.
I should like to see Mr. Speaker here given some such powers by parliament so that he could be the adjudicator, the referee or umpire. In that way we could get on with rules which would be acceptable to everybody. Only in that way can we function adequately as a parliament. A great deal of talk has been heard about the guillotine rule in the British House of Commons. What the government is asking for here is not a guillotine. It is asking for a blunderbuss. Considering the government's refusal to divide the omnibus bill into various sections and allow a free vote on that, and considering the vast concessions made to the government in respect of changes in the rules, it is my belief the government has acted in a way which should lead us to think it cannot be trusted with a blunderbuss at this time, espe-ically when it wishes to have it on the shelf so that it will be convenient for use when we reconvene in October.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate but I should like to say at once that I am sorry about the present situation. I am sorry to

Procedure and Organization see that after hundreds of years, we still have to fight for our rights and our prerogatives.
While the Canadian people fought so hard and with such dedication, while our ancestors worked so hard to promote and protect the interests of the people, we are still faced with the same conditions.
This, Mr. Speaker, breaks our hearts and we are disappointed to see that this parliament, in 1969-in the 20th century, a century of science and progress-still has to waste time, to fight and to protest strongly in order to preserve its rights.
I think that these rights are dear to us, Mr. Speaker. They should be protected to the utmost because they are what is most precious, noble and great in a country where democracy has a right to exist and where everybody has a right to insist on his prerogatives. At present, this government wants to force upon us a real dictatorship. Now, if they were in the opposition, perhaps they would not say the same thing.
I have been here since 1962 when the Liberals were in the opposition. They were then taking part in the debates and wasting the time of the house. In those days, they were fighting vigorously to maintain their rights. 1 hey claimed that the government was interfering with their rights and prerogatives.
Indeed, the Liberals monopolized the time of the house to the extent where no rule could be adopted.
The situation has now changed. The opposition has accepted certain reforms. It has been quite reasonable; it has taken several steps in the right direction to improve the Standing Orders of the house. There is not one member of the opposition who is not in favour of making some improvements. There is not one of them who does not want progress and to do something for the people.
As for us, we have been forced to take certain steps to be recognized, to be heard. To represent the elite, and the people, the opposition has been forced to do that because the government has introduced impossible laws, laws that are unfair to the people.
When the government introduced the omnibus bill, to which 80 per cent of the people were opposed, we used every right and prerogative at our disposal in order that the rights of those who did not want it should be respected. The bill was adopted just the same. Unfair laws like that one will be used to hold up the business of the house.

Procedure and Organization _ If social, humane laws were introduced, if improvements were made to our economic system, if the rights of the individual, the human being, were recognized, it would be something new, and the opposition would then be happy to co-operate with the government.
Indeed, when the government introduces social laws, humane laws, with which the people agree, the opposition does not oppose them; it votes for their adoption.
We vote for any good legislation that happens to be introduced.
That is what we have been sent here for. We are not here to filibuster. We have been elected to administer, to represent the people, to take part in the making of legislation, in the best interests of the people. That is the reason why we have been elected.
Such is the position of the Ralliement creditiste and that has been our approach, so far.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the government is practically denying the rights and the principles of the opposition. It has decided to relinquish the safeguards of the laws and to curtail the prerogatives of the opposition.
We are against that and we are going to fight to the end so that the opposition may preserve its rights and prerogatives..
There would have been many subjects to discuss if the government had allowed, for example, a debate on agriculture. We barely had time to discuss agriculture. Canadian agriculture is in the worst state of stagnation it has ever known. We did not have enough time to discuss its plight because the government did not see fit to introduce legislation in that field and because it was afraid of being forced to do something for agriculture. It preferred doing something for finance, not for agriculture.
Many other measures concerning industry could have been introduced.
Indeed, the government could have proposed measures, Mr. Speaker-
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Papineau wishes to ask a question of the hon. member for Compton. 
DEBATES	July 18, 1969


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon.
member if he agrees with me that if the Creditiste members had not engaged in a filibuster on the omnibus bill, the government would probably have had the opportunity to bring forward the legislation he is talking about.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
With all due respect, I wish to point out that the authority of the Chair is unmistakably put in question while the hon. member for Compton is making his speech.
I have noticed that since the beginning of his very interesting remarks, the clowns opposite have not had the decency to listen to them. They are busy talking among themselves and joking.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this is detrimental to the authority of the Chair and that we, from the opposition, are ready to cooperate with you so that your authority may be respected. If you need our help, we could tell off those clowns across the way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I am very grateful indeed to the hon. member and I shall follow his advice.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, as for the filibustering to which the hon. member for Papineau was referring, I had already answered by saying that we were filibustering because the legislation was unfair and that 80 per cent of the people were against it. That is why we have used this tactic.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to make laws and a laws is the result of several factors. Before passing a law, we must examine every aspect of it, we must put it through trial. A law should not only be conceived by lawyers, because even if they represent their profession well, if they are good at drafting laws, a law applies to every citizen. In order that a law be socially just, it must reflect the image of the nation as a whole.
Well, here, the whole nation is represented. The house has farmers, industrialists, businessmen, lawyers and doctors in short all classes of society are represented here.
Therefore, any bill that is passed must reflect the aspirations of Canadian society, and must not merely be a written text prepared by lawyers who handle words with great skill to make the laws incomprehensible.
The measure that the government is now proposing, that is rule 75c, does not reflect public opinion. Canadians are living in a
July 16, 1969	COMMONS
democratic country and have not yet accepted a dictatorship. The Canadian people do not approve of this rule which was written by a few members of the government party who appear to be determined to ram it down the throats of the people and of the opposition.
The people of Canada still want democratic principles to be respected, and you of the government party have been elected under the label of democracy and not under that of dictatorship because at the present time, dictatorship has no place in Canada.
I should tell the government that we are sorry to see the character of this debate. If the debates of this house were protracted and there was a filibuster, as my hon. friend said a while ago, the fault lies not with the opposition but with the government. The reason was rule 75c that the Liberal party wanted to force on the population in spite of objections from a large majority. That is not democracy but dictatorship, actually. That is contrary to democracy, a type of government that we cherish and want to preserve.
If the Liberal members were sitting in the opposition, I feel that this house would be in a turmoil. I believe that none of them would have the courage to accept such a rule, a rule devised by some of them who turn up their noses at democracy. Today, they are all prepared to give in, to follow like sheep and to vote in favour of such a rule, and that against the will of the Canadian population.
Mr. Speaker, we heard all kinds of comments during this debate and, in my opinion, hon. members have brought out all that is important. They have tried to explain conditions, to give their views and they have asked the government to give in. They said that we from the opposition had up to now made several attempts in order to improve the rules and to speed up the business of the house.
The opposition has tried to attain a certain goal, but from now on the party in office must make concessions. It must catch up with
Procedure and Organization the opposition so that an agreement may be reached and so that the sovereign rights of democracy may be fully respected. It is the duty of the government at the present time to take the lead and meet the opposition, in order to reach an agreement.
I agree with the previous speaker who asked the government whether it would not be possible for both parties to agree and postpone the debate in order to bring the session to an end, in accordance with general consensus. It is certainly not to the credit of Canada that the house is sitting under conditions such as those existing at the present time, without any agreement or settlement in sight. Therefore, parliament should adjourn and proceed with the debate later on.
Until then we might all have time to find other solutions and other steps liable to give to the Canadian nation a real goal, that is, the existence of a sound and lively democracy, of a democracy which will give Canadians security and some freedom, and not only yokes, as it is presently intended.
Until now, Mr. Speaker, high finance has been favoured, it has received everything. Interest rates have increased, as well as those lof bonds. For instance, as of July 1, 1969, bonds for which the rate was 5 per cent were renewed at 8 per cent. Those who used to get $50,000 in interests on a million dollars worth of bonds will now receive $80,000.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Henry P. Latulippe: That is what was done, Mr. Speaker. Nothing has been done for the people. Finance got everything-Let us think about the people, and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
It being six o'clock, the house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 17, 1969