Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, I have had conversations with hon. members in various corners of the house and I understand that the house generally would agree to have government bills introduced in bilingual form.

Mr. Speaker:

Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker:

It is so ordered.

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, the government has put before members of the opposition parties a number of suggestions with respect to dealing with the procedures of the house, both dealing with them on an interim basis-that is to say for the period of this particular session-and to provide a framework within which suggestions for procedural reform could be considered and dealt with by the house.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that there is not general agreement to the full nature of these suggestions put forward by the government, but it would be, in my opinion, perhaps reasonable if we could, on these particular discussions at least, proceed from the known territory in which the house has been operating for the last three sessions; that is to say, from the basis of the provisional rules which were in effect in the house up until the dissolution of parliament on April 23.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the house that we adopt that particular proposal and put into effect the provisional rules as they stood on April 23, 1968 for the period of the current session, unless of course in the interim the house makes any changes. If there is agreement to that proposition then I

would be prepared to move a motion along that line.

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, may I have the leave of the house to make some comments which normally I would not be able to do. We in this party are in accord that some interim arrangements should be made as soon as possible covering the 1968 session. We are not in agreement with the government as to the nature of those interim arrangements. We also feel that as soon as possible measures should be taken to undertake basic, fundamental and far reaching reforms.

[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)

These two questions are tied together and ought to be the subject of discussion and debate in the house as soon as we can reach an arrangement under which this issue may be debated.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to make it clear that we in this party were willing to agree to the immediate reinstatement of the provisional rules. Since there was not unanimous agreement that this be done, we are prepared to participate in further negotiations, hoping we can arrive very shortly at something upon which we can all agree.

Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):

Mr. Speaker, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, have no objection to continuing with the procedure we have been using during the last session. Therefore, we are not opposed to keeping the provisional rules in force until parliament has made a decision on the necessary changes to procedure and, until then, we have no objection to using the provisional rules, as we have been doing.

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In

September 13, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry view of the tens of thousands of Biafrans dying weekly of starvation, and in view of the failure to date of the government of Canada to pursue with energy and concern any plan to bring assistance to those starving civilians, will the Prime Minister tell the house what measures the government of Canada proposes to take even at this late date to avert what threatens to be one of the great tragedies of modern times?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer this question.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, no government has been more active in trying to bring to an end this horrible war in Nigeria, and no government has been more generous in providing relief supplies to deal with the great suffering and starvation existing in that country.

Can they reach Biafra?

Mr. Sharp:

Unfortunately it has been

impossible for the International Red Cross, which is the association we have agreed upon as being the instrument best suited for the purpose, to reach agreement with the Nigerian and Biafran authorities as to an adequate route for the provision of supplies. I regret this very much. We have been working to bring about agreement, but this has not yet been possible.

Mr. Slanfield:

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What pressures has Canada brought to bear on the governments of Lagos and Biafra to encourage a mutually acceptable arrangement for the shipment of relief supplies to Biafra?

Mr. Sharp:

As much pressure as we could bring to bear, Mr. Speaker. We have been in constant contact with the government in Lagos. Nevertheless, I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree that the best instrument which can be of help in these circumstances is an international agency such as the International Red Cross, the motives of which are beyond reproach. That body could do this work most effectively. I take it that hon. gentlemen on this side of the house and on the other side will agree that we ought to continue to work through the International Red Cross.