1971-12-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there is standing in my name an adjournment motion covering the adjournment of the session. I thought it might be more clearcut, in view of the events that have happened since I put this motion on the order paper, to move another motion. If I had consent I would do it and allow it to be the basis for discussion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I gather that in effect the minister is seeking leave to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I may surprise him by saying we are going to consent, but we hope he will remember that and return the favour some time.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has been good enough to show to some of us the terms of his substitute motion. While we may have something to say about the substance of it, the essence of it is the same as the one on the order paper and we have no objection to the minister being allowed to present the substitute motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, when the House adjourns at the conclusion of this day's sitting, it shall stand adjourned until a time to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, when the House may meet for the purpose of dealing with any subsequent proceeding on or the giving of Royal Assent to Bill C-176, An Act to Establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products.
That, after the giving of Royal Assent to the said bill or in the event the House does not meet for that purpose, the House shall be adjourned or stand adjourned, as the case may be, until February 16, 1972, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.
Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word or two with regard to the adjournment motion itself, the motion provides that when the House finally adjourns, so to speak, it will stand adjourned until February 16, 1972. However, we are aware that the other place is at the present time dealing with Bill C-176,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It may have finished with it by now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and we are not certain as to when the other place will complete its deliberations on this bill. Really, therefore, the first paragraph of the motion provides for that contingency and permits Your Honour to summon the House for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to Bill C-176 or any other proceeding that may be required as a result of the deliberations in the other place. If the other place should complete the consideration of the bill today, we would have Royal Assent today and following that Royal Assent we would stand adjourned until February 16, 1972. The motion provides that the Speaker may summon us for Royal Assent whenever it may occur, today, Monday or on another date.
If I may make another comment with respect to the time that is provided in the motion for an adjournment period, this session of Parliament has been the third longest in history.


Mr. Bell:: We did not break a record, then.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As of December 31, 1971, the number of sittings in this session was 242. It may still go into three calendar years, but we are not certain. If that is the case, it will be the first session since 1940-41-42 to straddle three calendar years. Perhaps we will avoid that record breaking second first, so to speak.
I have looked over the results of this session and I believe hon. members can be satisfied that a substantial amount of government business has been completed. We have completed 58 government bills in this session. As I look over the list-I am sure that my memory is somewhat like that of other hon. members-I revived in my own mind the variety and the importance of the legislation that has gone through the House, including the Canada Shipping Act, the Investment Companies Act, the Tax Review Board Act, the Co-operative Associations Act, the Packaging and Labelling Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Veterans Pensions and Allowances Act, the Regional Development Inventives Act amendment, the Canada Development Corporation Act, the Textile and Clothing Board Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act amendment, the Pilotage Act amendment, and so on.
It has been a very heavy session, and it may be of interest to note that three of the bills that came before the House occupied a total of 87 days. We know that the tax

December 31, 1971
Business of the House
reform legislation itself was before the House for 50 days, the government organization bill was before the House for 23 days, and the Public Order Act was before the House for 14 days. I regret somewhat that that large number of days was spent, for example, on the Government Organization Act and on the Public Order Act. I feel, however, that probably the 50 days spent on the tax reform legislation was justified in view of its size and importance.
Aside and apart from the rather long period spent on these two other bills, government organization and public order, the House did proceed with dispatch to complete its consideration of public bills. I might mention that probably the reason so much time was spent on these two latter bills, namely government organization and public order, was that for the first time the House had in a long time the luxury of dealing with bills in the Committee of the Whole. It seems that the Committee of the Whole was so attractive to hon. members that they left it only with reluctance and after a long period of debate. The activity in committees was substantial as well. Studies were conducted by the various committees of such matters as unemployment insurance, election expenses, security in the galleries, environmental pollution, the constitution, the broadcasting of Parliament, foreign policy, and the financial structure of the CNR.
I make these preliminary observations in order to remind the House that hon. members have laboured for a long period of time and, it seems to me, have laboured productively, painstakingly, and with considerable results.
It should also be mentioned that the House was recalled in September, which had not been according to original planning. It was felt that that month might be devoted to government planning and preparations for a future session. But in view of the desire of the government to complete and to provide additional time for consideration of the tax reform legislation, it was decided to recall the House in September. This ought to be kept in mind in considering the time provided for in the motion for the adjournment period.
Yesterday I was asked to go out in the corridor and reply to questions asked by newsmen as to the length of the adjournment period. I was asked why we had put on the notice paper a provision for a holiday of six weeks. Of course, I take exception to that description of what is involved in this motion. Hon. members know perfectly well that after this long period of activity, and at times very strenuous activity, and particularly strenuous in the last six weeks, it is reasonable for hon. members to be entitled, like other human beings, to take time off to recover their energies, their strength and their spirit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And I hope that, without apology, hon. members will take advantage of the time available for that very purpose. But that is not the only purpose. Hon. members are not only persons who must sit in the House of Commons in Ottawa. They are, in addition to that, representatives of the people of Canada. Each of us in this House is not a bureaucrat, is not someone who occupies a desk in Ottawa, but a person who is elected in a constituency, with electors who want to have some close contact with their members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I know in my own case, Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat exploited because I have been pinioned to this desk in this House of Commons for weeks and months, and have been able to go to my constituency only on week ends. I look forward to spending a part of this period working in my constituency, and renewing my knowledge of and association with the problems and the people of that distinguished riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
But in addition to that, the government will be commencing its program of meetings in mid-January, and it will continue its regular activities in committees of cabinet, and in cabinet itself, in preparation for the next session, in planning for the legislative program, in preparing the Speech from the Throne, and in examining the problems and the policies that are obviously the responsibility of government at the present time. Therefore, Your Honour, I feel that this motion, understood in the proper context, in the context as I have explained it, is reasonable and ought to commend itself to the House and to the people of Canada.
For my own part, before I sit down, I would like to thank the opposition House leaders, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) for the great amount of time they have put into the work of this session of Parliament. Much of the work that was done, especially on the two bills that we have just completed, was invisible but it was work that required the co-operation of all parties in the House and that resulted in the completion of these bills on a reasonable schedule.
I thank hon. members also for seeing the Business of the House through until about seven o'clock this morning and coming back so fit and fresh and so numerous- especially on this side of the House.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone in the House has enjoyed listening to and watching the gymnastics of the government House leader but it is clear that he just sprained his wrist by patting himself and the government on the back for the great job they claim to have done during the session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: So that there will be no misunderstanding, government members will note that I said "claim" they have done. Actually, they have done a lousy job and we all know it. Let's have no fooling around about that.
In the self-congratulatory oration that we have just listened to, the government House leader claims that Parliament has put through a record amount of business. He seems to forget that just about two weeks ago this government claimed that because the opposition had held up the progress of the business for so many weeks, the government could not get ahead with anything so they had to impose closure. Mr. Speaker, they cannot have it both

December 31, 1971

ways. What we are discussing today is a proposal for this House to be adjourned for seven weeks.


An hon. Member:: Six.


George Harris Hees: It is exactly seven weeks if you want to get out your calendar and count the days. That is about as accurate as any of you birds have ever been in this session.
It would be perfectly satisfactory for this House to adjourn for seven weeks if the matters for which this government and Parliament are responsible were in satisfactory condition. But, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and the public of Canada, and I can assure this government, that these matters are not close to being in satisfactory condition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition feel that we were sent here to do a job.


An hon. Member:: Where are they then?


George Harris Hees: In the summer we had a recess of no less than ten weeks and we became well rested.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, but it will be difficult for any of us to hear the hon. member as there are too many interruptions. He should be allowed to make his speech.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't bother me at all. This rabble gets into the act all the time. It is all very enjoyable and does not bother me a bit.
This government adjourned Parliament for ten weeks this past summer. We became well rested. We went to our constituencies and worked, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) knows. He came down to visit my constituency, and we had a most charming day at the Picton fair, as he will remember. We have received a generous pay raise from the people of Canada for the work we do here, and we feel that the two and a half months holiday we had this past summer, plus a normal three-week holiday for Christmas, plus the usual 12 days we get off at Eastertime would be adequate holidays for any Member of Parliament or any member of the government; and, having been a member of a government as well as a Member of Parliament, I speak with some experience.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may we have order, please?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member said a moment ago that interruptions do not bother him. They might bother me. Perhaps the hon. member might be given a chance to continue his speech.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, believe in decorum. What are the matters that this Parliament and government should be dealing with after we have had a three week recess and come back here on about January 21 instead of February 16? The most important matter that this government and Parliament should deal with is the question of unemployment, which has been on the
Business of the House
shoulders of this government for several years now. We have heard assurances from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Prime Minister month after month, for the past 12 months at least or longer, to the effect that unemployment will immediately begin a downward trend. As you know and I know, Mr. Speaker, this trend simply has not developed. Unemployment now, for this time of year, is at an unprecedented level. Approximately 6.7 per cent of the work force, or 550,000 Canadians, are unemployed. What is more, there is every indication that as this year unfolds, because this government has not acted in a progressive and practical way to solve this problem, unemployment will stay as high as it is or even get higher in the months ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


George Harris Hees: That is a disgraceful situation for any government to admit to. Unfortunately, this government must admit to it.


Thomas Miller Bell: That holds true for most people, except for the Prime Minister's staff. That staff remains large.


George Harris Hees: You might ask, Mr. Speaker, why does Parliament have to come back? Why should we not leave the government here, for the next several weeks, and let it try to work out this situation. The answer is, they have been trying to work out this thing for several years and have come up with absolutely no answers at all. Unemployment has continued rising and the government has brought out weak excuses month after month. None of them hold water. More and more unemployed are added to the rolls, and so the sorry story goes. It is therefore necessary for the members of the opposition to be back here, telling the ministers of this government what they should do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And where will you be?


George Harris Hees: You just bring us back here on January 21, and you will see where we will be. You will hear what you must do about unemployment, because we will tell you. We will put practical programs before you for you to undertake, because you people do not seem to understand what you must do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Let us take a look at this matter of unemployment; I will tell you what the opposition would do to force unemployment down if we were the government. First, Mr. Speaker, we must ask, what causes unemployment?


Thomas Miller Bell: Liberals do.


George Harris Hees: Unemployment is caused when the production of goods in Canada is not at the level it should be. And what causes production to fall? It is the lack of sales of goods. Those are simple things to remember. What do we need to do to increase employment? We must increase selling Canadian goods. It is as simple as that. That is what must be done. We must sell more Canadian goods, and I am going to tell you how to do that.
There are two things needed to increase the sale of Canadian products. First, you need an expanded sales

December 31, 1971
Business of the House
effort. Second, you need a first-class program to increase productivity in this country, to lower costs, lower selling prices, make our products more competitive against foreign products selling in the Canadian market and against Canadian products selling abroad. What has this government done to bring about an improvement in trade in those fields? It is a very simple answer, Mr. Speaker. This government has done absolutely nothing.
I am going to tell you why it is very clear the government has done absolutely nothing. As a start, they only have to look at the export figures for 1971. They will see that our exports for this year have increased by a mere and disgraceful 5 per cent. That is all. In order for our export industries to carry their load of providing the additional jobs that our rapidly growing work force needs each year, exports in this country must increase by an absolute minimum of 10 per cent a year. That is the absolute minimum. If they are not increasing by that amount, they are not producing the jobs that the people who should be employed in those industries should be getting year by year. It is as simple as that.
The most important part of our exports, of course, are the exports of fully manufactured goods. The breakdown between our manufacturers of unprocessed products, semiprocessed products and fully processed products is not available. It is in the process of being produced at the present time. Last year our increase of fully manufactured products was a very small percentage of the whole total. Of the increase of 15 per cent overall last year, the increase of unprocessed products was 31.8 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I suggest to him that although I appreciate what he is attempting to do, the intent of his speech is obvious, obvious to the Chair in any event. He must make an effort to relate his remarks to the motion before the House which is a motion to adjourn the House. I know it is possible to relate an adjournment motion perhaps to a trade situation, if the hon. member wants to call it that. We cannot have a general debate on unemployment, a general debate on trade, and a general debate on every single subject of general interest. I think hon. members have a responsibility to make an effort to relate their remarks specifically and clearly to the motion before us.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Naturally, I quite agree with what you say. I was simply trying to give this government something to go on in the next seven weeks when they are not going to have the benefit of our advice in Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I am prepared, either here in my place or by going to talk to any of them, to outline exactly what should be done and what will work from a practical point of view. I quite agree that perhaps this is not the time to say it. I have given enough indication of the problems of fighting unemployment that face this government, problems that have not been faced by this government that need to be dealt with in the next seven weeks. I do not think there is any question about that.
There is also the question of preparing a program to fight inflation if inflation should start to rise even more

rapidly than at the present time. This government has no program to combat inflation. Last time, their program was a joke. Management and labour laughed at it. The government brought in guidelines with no teeth in them. Management and labour laughed and nothing was done. The program was a complete failure.
It is obvious that in bringing in this motion for a seven week adjournment, all this Prime Minister and this cabinet want to do is get the opposition off their backs. The Prime Minister has a great disregard and disrespect for Parliament. He does not like us. He does not want us here. We are nobodies. We are troublesome to him. We bring him into the House each day and make him answer embarrassing questions. He does not like that.
It was interesting hearing the account of what the government had done during the past three and a half months. Everything was mentioned except what the government has done to solve the case of the leaks of six cabinet documents in six weeks and all they are going to do in the future. We look forward to hearing about that when we return. Sending us, people who are paid to come here, work and to do a job in Parliament, away for seven weeks-


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: I will answer your question later, George. We are paid to do a job in Parliament. We should be back here on January 21 advising the government, debating with the government and seeing that the government does its job, not pushed aside as the nobodies which the Prime Minister considers us to be, allowing him and his colleagues to be simply rid of us and away from all this embarrassing questioning.
When we do meet on February 16, you can imagine what kind of a program the government will have. There will be more of the vague generalities and the ideas away up on cloud nine that never come down to earth and never get into practical form. That is the only thing we will see. This country deserves an awful lot better than that. I ask the government to reconsider. Have some conscience about your duty to the country. Call us back in three weeks and we will show you what this country needs to put it on its feet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may be deemed to yet have the floor. He will allow the hon. member to ask a question. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with some care. When he was referring to the duty of hon. members to be here this morning-


George Harris Hees: Not this morning.


George James McIlraith: Was the hon. member referring to the 11 out of 12 of the frontbenchers in his party who are absent this morning or was he referring to his leader who has been away during all the important stages of the debate on the Farm Marketing Bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 31, 1971


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member asked that question because you can see that members opposite have suddenly become proud of their improved attendance in the House. Do you know what brought that about? It was the day we licked them in a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: We beat them 44 to 42. It was only as a result of rubbing their noses in it that the Prime Minister and his cohorts are sitting here. They are so excited about this new attendance they want everybody to know about it. The hon. member asked why some of our members are not here this morning. The answer is the mismanagement of the operations of this House. This House was supposed to be adjourned last night to allow our members to make plane reservations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: The government should bring us back on the 21st, but it does not have the guts to do that. Bring us back and we will tell you what to do. We will put you in your place and we will get this country moving. Any more questions?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: It is always a great pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees). After listening to him this morning, I really consider him to be one of the most progressive and enlightened members of this House-now that he is in opposition. I am sure we all wish he would have been as forceful and dramatic and interesting when he was Minister of Transport-


Some hon. Members:: He was.


Frank Howard: -and when he was Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Harris Hees: That was the only time your riding ever had anything done for it by Transport, and you know that damned well. I even put up with the hon. member's company for a full day in his riding to get something done for him.


Frank Howard: It is difficult for me to hear those pearls of wisdom. But he was saying, in effect, "those were the days". The night of the long knives, I think it was called, when the hon. member was so unkind to the person who at that time held the office of Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume the hon. member's remarks have been introductory. He should give some thought to addressing himself to the motion before the House.


Frank Howard: I have every intention of doing so. I was a little diverted at the outset. We have listened to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) give a recitation of the government's accomplishments, and the thought crossed my mind, knowing that the hon. gentleman is a modest and humble sort, that he left out a few things which ought to be placed alongside that record. Some of them Parliament learned about by accident and had no hand in developing or shaping. I am thinking in terms of the establishment of a secret police force in the
Business of the House
office of the Solicitor General, one of the accomplishments which the President of the Privy Council might have added to his list. I think, also, of the leakage of the Gray report, such a worth while document to make public, and the fact that so far no one has been able to find out who was responsible for drawing the attention of the general public to the more valuable parts of the report which was being kept secret by the government. The hon. gentleman might have listed the fact that the government eventually got around to making payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. There are many things of that sort he might have included; I do not wish to discuss them at great length.
Tomorrow sees the commencement of January, and of another year, too. This is appropriate. It may help us to understand how it is that the government can play both sides, take two courses and get the best of two worlds. January, Mr. Speaker, was named after one of the ancient gods of Rome called Janus. He was a god with two faces- he could see what had already happened and also, what lay ahead. It is because the government has two faces that it is able to say the things it does and get away with it. Surely, what we have heard this morning from the President of the Privy Council is not what we have been listening to from the government for so long, namely, that it could not get business through this House, that there was obstruction, that there was filibustering, that closure had to be brought in to get something done. It is because the government has two faces that it is able to say these things and get away with it. The arguments used about the obstruction, about delay, about putting blocks in the way of what the government was proposing to do in the public interest were proven false and phony by the President of the Privy Council himself when he talked about the substantial amount of government business which had passed through Parliament. I wonder whether he was, in fact, leaking the speech which the Governor General usually makes at the close of a session of Parliament.
I wish to take a few moments in which to indicate why I believe the government is phony and insincere in its attempt to deal with the problems confronting the Canadian people. In doing so, I propose to draw up a list somewhat similar to that which the President of the Privy Council read out, a list of items which the government obviously considered to be of extreme importance when it placed them upon the order paper but which have not been dealt with. There are quite a number of these items ranging over three pages. I shall not mention them all, because some of them are minor and technical, but I shall call attention to those measures which were considered to be of real importance by the government. If hon. gentlemen opposite really had any concern about the public business they would see that Parliament was brought back long before February 16 in order that it could deal with items which the government only a few months ago said were important.
Look at item No. 41, the report stage of an important piece of legislation relating to the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, a subject which has been examined at great length by the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The bill has been reported to the House and a number of amendments proposed in an attempt to make government legislation better than it was

Decemb er 31,1971
Business of the House
originally. This item has been on the order paper for a long period but it has now been thrust aside by the government, not considered to be of any great value at this stage. Another item is the order providing for the resumption of the debate on the report of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution. The chairman of that committee, as we know, attempted to have this report adopted, its members having unanimously expressed concern with regard to oil tanker routes off the west coast, but this attempt was scuttled by the very President of the Privy Council who today lauded the government's achievements. This is another matter which was trust aside as of no value.
Then again, ever since June there has been on the order paper the report stage of a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, another measure of concern and interest to western agriculture. This, too, has been pushed aside. Valuable as it might be to agriculturists in western Canada and to the public generally, the government seeks to sweep it under the rug. One might well ask about the position of Bill C-244 relating to grain stabilization which the government considered such a valuable piece of legislation and then subsequently withdrew. What about this? Is the government not prepared to present that measure again to the House? Is it not concerned about western agriculture? This relates to a field of government policy which only a few months ago was considered to be so valuable. Now, it is of no concern whatever.
A very important question about which much has been said, both in terms of white papers and the like, is the extremely important bill pertaining to the promotion of the sale of cigarettes, a matter concerning the health of everyone in this nation and a matter which the government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) as long ago as June 10 said was so important that it should be placed on the order paper at that time for consideration. Now, there is no time for that. Certainly, these are matters which could be dealt with if we met in the middle of January instead of in the middle of February. These are matters which are very important to the health and well being of the people of this nation. There are the amendments to the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act which have also been considered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to be so important that he placed them on the order paper at the end of June. Now, there is no attempt whatsoever to proceed with them or to consider that they are worthwhile and valuable amendments. We want to know why that cannot be done, say, in the middle of January. It may be that the Minister of Justice is losing his influence in the cabinet. It may be that his position has been relegated to a less prominent one, so that he is unable to have his way in getting the valuable things he thinks should be done before the House and before cabinet.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), of course, has had the amendments to the Federal Labour Code relating to collective bargaining on the order paper since June 28. At the time of introduction, there was great fanfare about this being a most important piece of legislation. Now, why can it not be dealt with in the middle of January instead of in the middle of February? Does the Minister of Labour
[Mr. Howard (Skeena).l
not have any influence with his colleagues from Quebec or with the Prime Minister? He shakes his head. Obviously, either he has no influence or no interest in proceeding with this particular matter. Surely, that is one item which could have been proceeded with around the middle of January instead of being pushed aside. Perhaps the Minister of Labour, having made such a fantastic mess out of the operations of the unemployment insurance commission, is not interested in appearing before Parliament to try to tell the general public how that mess can be straightened out, apart from saying occasionally that he has Bell Telephone tapping the poles to see whether or not they are being used to the fullest possible extent. But that is an important matter. If the Prime Minister who apparently runs the show had any interest in it he would have Parliament back in operation again by the middle of January in order to deal with these matters.
There is the act spuriously called one to promote competition in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford), which was of such great concern and interest and such a valuable piece of legislation that it, too, had to be set down for second reading on June 29, six months ago. We have heard nothing about that since that time. It may be of course, as we know, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been sucked in by the business community and is going to write the legislation to suit the Canadian Manufacturers Association rather than the general public, but that is speculation on my part. There is the matter of family allowance payments about which there had been some great concern just a few weeks ago which now is of no interest to the government. There is the matter of the readjustment of representation in this House, the question of the promised day of debate on abortion and the matter of election expenses which has been hanging fire for the last six or eight years, a subject matter which the government said was so important a couple of years ago that it would not let the committee on Privileges and Elections deal with it because the government wanted to deal with it as a special item. That, too, has been buried, pushed aside and ignored.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think I might simply say that so far as this government is concerned, in indicating its interest in the public welfare of Canada, the fact that it has now decided it wants to embark on a seven-week vacation to do whatever it feels desirable in order to get out of the way of Parliament, indicates that it is as phony as the proverbial three-dollar bill.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be somewhat briefer than the two hon. members who spoke before me. First, I would like to express my feelings on this December 31, 1971. I think it is utterly stupid that I should have to speak today, considering the list of records which the minister enumerated a while ago. Among these, it seems that he forgot to mention some very distressful events, including the now famous War Measures Act. Mr. Speaker, I wish I did not feel sad at the end of this year 1971, on the very eve of 1972. However, I think the minister carefully avoided recalling extremely sad events which took place in the course of the session ending today.
December 31, 1971

There are no indications in what the minister said that would prompt us to look forward to necessary changes, the most important which of, in my opinion, would be to have the Standing Orders of the House in step with a Prime Minister who is believed to be young and with it. As a matter of fact, among the changes to be made would be the removal of this stupidity whereby no one knows when sessions begin and end. For several years, I have noticed that in Quebec's provincial legislature-now the National Assembly-as well as in the House of Commons, every succeeding government has been using this little game of blackmail to have bills adopted in a hurry whether they be as monstrous as Bill C-259 or as important for the future of the country as Bill C-176.
noon)
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this little game, this questionable tradition still being observed by the government in 1971, is, as I said before, stupid and foolish. And I hope that with the beginning of a new year this badly needed reform of our parliamentary system will be brought about. I also hope that definite dates will be set for the opening and adjournment of sessions and that we will no longer see this ridiculous trick to which governments have resorted up to now. And the dates could be known if there were more rational organization. We would not be witnessing the woeful sight of all those empty benches and the tense faces of hon. members who sat until seven o'clock this morning.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of any assertion to the effect that such a state of things is normal, I repeat that it is absolutely not so. If the government program had included such elementary reforms as methodical ordering and organizing of sessions, if the government knows exactly how long it should take to deal with each bill to be passed during a session, why are we not informed right from the beginning of the session of the order of introduction of bills. It is an elementary reform. And this is a just society! Let us start out by having a just Parliament!
How ridiculous it was, Mr. Speaker, to see all those votes being railroaded through last night. The government voting machine was operating to capacity.
How many government members knew what they were voting for? How many realized that by supporting some of the amendments proposed for Bill C-176 they were voting against this country's farmers? It was not even beneficial, from an electoral point of view, to vote against some of yesterday's amendments. Nevertheless, it was done. Government members as a whole are a voting machine.
We were expecting much better. If the government members are satisfied-I repeat here the views of the people of my riding, views which are shared, I am sure, by all Quebecers and even all Canadians-I would say that when we met our constituents during the Christmas holiday while the Prime Minister was welcoming his Messiah, while we were in our families, our constituents told us: It is crazy, it is stupid! Why do you have to sit between Christmas and New Year?
Why do they make us do that, Mr. Speaker? Because we know very well that in the eyes of the public the opposition is always responsible for delays. The opposition never but never fails to delay the work of the House. And once again, the Prime Minister, the government, the cabi-
Business of the House
net are playing the game. Mr. Speaker, it is intellectual abuse to act this way to make the population believe that the opposition delays the work. And the government tells the public: Since it is evident that the House will not reconvene until February 16 and that we will have elections in April, the opposition has forced us to impose the gag and to sit on December 31.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we had a really efficient parliamentary organization, such a situation would not happen and the first measure that could give us that just society which the right hon. Prime Minister is boasting about is the one I just mentioned. He would have shown by this that he was not in favour of partisan politics, and that he put all hon. members on an equal footing whether it was the member for Champlain or for Mount Royal.
All here are equal. By eliminating political partisanship from Parliament, we would witness the real dawn of the advent of the just society since, as representatives of the whole population- of this country, we are called upon to realize the parliamentary reforms which are essential if we are to perform well. Therefore I blame the Government for having failed to do it.
What does that mean? Once again the "tax machine" has been set in action. It is always the same thing, Mr. Speaker! In spite of our efforts, our explanations, the truly positive solutions we offered, nothing can be done; the only solution is the "tax machine", and all the laws that have been passed, not to say forced through, all lead to fiscal reform. To what purpose? For the purpose of taxing in order to get an extra billion dollars or two.
Mr. Speaker, many things should have been done, and they were not. Some things were done, and they should never have been done.
Now, since this was a turning point in this session and since it will probably be the main point that will stay in history, I come back to the famous war measures. Upon their passage, the government had us believe in an apprehended insurrection, which was untrue! The government got carried away in order to make some political hay. History, Mr. Speaker, will have its revenge on that!
Another reform omitted by the minister in his "honour list", Mr. Speaker, is that of the Senate. What are we doing here this morning?-We are waiting. What are we waiting for?-We are waiting for the hon. gentlemen in the other place to send the bill back to us, such as it was referred to them, since nothing will be changed in it. This ridiculous waiting prevents us from being with our families on New Year's Eve. What are we waiting for? What changes do the senators want to make in Bill C-176?-We know! It is a ritual, always the same one. We are waiting, and we expect the people to think that this is serious.
Mr. Speaker, I object to such procedures. Normally, I had no intention of coming back to Ottawa this week because I wanted none of this stupidity but I told myself: I must go and tell them that this is stupid because maybe no one ever thought of doing it.
Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting since 1968 for the Messiah and the coming of the just society and what do we get? Justin!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Division

December 31, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Messrs:


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Cafik:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since we are imbued with the yuletide spirit, I wonder if it might be fair to allow the opposition to vote twice, in view of their small numbers.


Mr. McGrath:: What are you talking about?


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, let it be recorded that almost 50 Liberals are absent and did not take part in the vote.


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


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) wants to rise to move a motion dealing with the suspension of sitting. I wonder if he would mind delaying moving his motion until the next item on the order paper has been called, in order that I might introduce a bill standing in my name on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 31, 1971

Public Service Employment Act



PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT


John Stratford Burton: for leave to introduce Bill C-277, to amend the Public Service Employment Act (political partisanship).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Employment Act prohibits federal civil servants from taking part in most political activities. However, it is made clear that they have the right to attend political meetings, contribute funds to candidates or parties and apply for leave to run for nomination as a candidate. My bill would extend these rights to include the right to erect posters or signs at one's place of residence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the sitting be suspended this day until the call of the Chair.
I have in mind that Royal Assent is possible later this day-


James Aloysius McGrath: They would not dare.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and I am making this suggestion, which Your Honour might put in proper form so that it will be possible for us to reassemble, in the event that there is Royal Assent.


Mr. Speaker:: The proper procedure would be to inquire if there is agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The sitting of the House will stand suspended until the call of the bells.
I might indicate to hon. members that if they care to join the Speaker in room 16, I will be delighted to extend to them my welcome.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, publicly in the House, on behalf of my party to wish Your Honour a very Happy New Year and to say how much we have enjoyed participating under your wise and intelligent leadership, a leadership exercised despite the problems you have had to overcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may we of this party join most heartily in this wish to you and Madame Lamoureux, and we extend it also to all members of the House.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I extend to Your Honour our best wishes for a Happy New Year and congratulate you for you have shown skill and equity in presiding over House proceedings.
I also wish to take this opportunity to wish a Happy New Year to all our colleagues in the House.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I add my remarks of joy, and say that I am satisfied because at last the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has taken a positive and constructive initiative this morning. May I add my good wishes to his.

The time has come, Mr. Speaker, to wish you a Happy New Year and as we French Canadians say "le paradis a la fin de vos jours". I think you will have earned it after the hell we put you through several times during the session now coming to an end.
I should like also, on behalf of all my colleagues in the Liberal party, to wish a Happy New Year to all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their very kind comments, which I appreciate most sincerely. May I extend to hon. members my best wishes for a happy, prosperous and successful new year. I extend this wish to every member individually, and I thank each member individually for the kindness shown to the Chair at all times. The job of the Speaker is not always easy.

I wish to thank my colleagues for their kindness and all the good things they have said about me. May the New Year bring them joy, health and happiness. I invite them anew to come and give a bit more tangible expression to the mood we are in now.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 12.44 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6.49 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being after five o'clock p.m., and pursuant to the order adopted this day, this House stands adjourned until it appears that the House should meet for the purpose of giving royal assent to Bill C-176 or that other circumstances under the provisions of the order made earlier this day dictate that the House should meet.
At 6.50 p.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to special order.

Wednesday, January 12, 1972