Mr. Dick:

I hope my hon. friends on the government side will be as quick to applaud when I point out that there are many errors and omissions in this bill. If they had the courage of their convictions and the courage of good government and would listen to other people, they might introduce measures to strengthen the bill, such as the Canadian-owned distribution system recommended by the Davey committee and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). They might also consider a review of the postal rate structure as it affects small Canadian magazines. This cannot be done in committee. The only thing this bill deals with is the Income Tax Act; if the hon. member who is interjecting would read the bill, he would

Time Allocation Motion

know that. It has nothing to do with distribution and postal rates. Read the damm bill!

Oh, oh!

Mr. MacFarlane:

That's rude.

Mr. Dick:

It is not rude when the stupid member happens to say he can amend it in committee. If he can tell me how that can be amended in committee, he can stand up and I will sit down.

The Secretary of State should not have tried to speak to the present motion on this bill he was putting through the House. It would probably have been better had he let the thing run its course. I am afraid the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has inflamed emotions in this country. We will now have more editorials than ever, and I dare say this subject has caused more editorials in the last 12 months than anything other than prices and income controls.

I believe members of this House have received more correspondence on this subject in the last 24 months than on any other topic. My own mail on it runs twice as much as on capital punishment. Yet we will deal with capital punishment in 15 or 20 days. If abortion were brought in, we might deal with that in 15 or 20 days. We always have ten days for a budget, and we will go on for a long time on prices and income controls. A lot of people feel that this bill is a type of censorship and that there is control of or interference with a free press. They are writing letters to that effect. Why not let this House have full discussion of the subject, rather than closing it down?

I abhor this procedure. I think it is unfounded and unnecessary. If the President of the Privy Council had his wits about him and knew what was going on in this House, he would know there are maybe six people still to speak from this side. I want to say that I abhor the use of closure on a bill dealing with civil liberties and an area of the Bill of Rights. A lot of people perceive it as such, and that is good enough for me. This bill cannot be amended effectively in committee, and I think it is a mistake to bring in closure.

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):

Mr. Speaker, when a motion such as this one is under consideration, we must not forget a quite important concept of our parliamentary system.

When some provisions are practically never enforced and are at a given moment, one wonders why a debate is unilaterally restricted. And when we look for the reasons prompting the government to restrict the debates at a given moment, we find that it is always due to the evident unpopularity of a bill or still an excessive haste to enforce a bill to which Parliament sees no urgency.

Mr. Speaker, this is a consequence of an inconsistent system and the basic reason of that inconsistency is the following: we are not free to vote and this fact must be mentioned. The vote is not free. This is so true that from time to time a motion is moved to indicate that the vote will be free, which means that at other times, it is not.

When time came to vote on maintaining capital punishment or against the abolition of capital punishment, we

29956-20V^

November 13, 1975

Time Allocation Motion

were told that the vote was going to be a free vote. This means that, usually, a vote is not free. There is nothing more stupid in our parliamentary system than this lack of freedom about votes, since it is known in advance that the voting machine will be started on the other side of the House, that it will say yes because the government said so, regardless of the consequences in every electoral district represented by the members on the government benches.

Mr. Speaker, there is no use denying it, it is a fact, that is how it happens here, that is what I have seen for the last eight years. When you are stuck with such a system, the only thing left to do is to try, even then, to force the government to find measures that people will approve, and only those which promote emancipation and development of the whole of the country.

We have no other solution to force the government to change certain things we consider inappropriate or improper; all we can do is talk about it, insist upon it and repeat it so that at some point the government may change because we contend that it must be changed. Striking, the last resource, is the only way workers have in the present system to try to solve their problems.

The parliamentary system forces us to that. That could be remedied however if Parliament were changed. Evidently, each member would first have to recover the basic freedom we fundamentally need if we are to respect and reflect the opinion of those we pride ourselves on representing. But, Mr. Speaker, that would require at least that every vote be a free one. All we need do is get rid of established precedents and traditions whereby no government bill may be defeated. That is why our hon. colleagues on the government side make a point of voting always against their opinions, sometimes against their conscience and against their own constituents. If we were to establish the balance sheet of all these contradictions, we could end up with surprising results.

A free vote, therefore, would be the initial step to take if we want to do away with debates which last unduly. Only then could we be sure that at the time of the question, the result would reflect the opinion of the majority, while we know now that the number of votes in favour of this bill will be that of hon. members of the Liberal party present 'in the House. The result will not depend on the value of the bill, but on the number of members in the House. That is a question of party strength and not of opinion, which is quite unfortunate. This could be remedied by a free vote. Then, it could be easier to limit the debates if we had what our party has been advocating for a long time, fixed sessions; when we know when the session is beginning and when it is going to end, it is a lot easier to determine within this time frame how long it will take to discuss the government's legislation. In those circumstances, we, from the opposition, would not object to the government setting a well established schedule enumerating the pieces of legislation the government would put before the House. Then, we would know exactly when a legislation would be put before us and we would be a lot less inclined to discuss it at long length, whereas presently we never know what will be put before us the following week, the following day and even the following hour.

Now, all those ambiguous and equivocal situations bring us, that is the government, to try and play tricks on us by

rapidly passing controversial bills, and so on. We play hide-and-seek instead of being serious and discussing objectively the intrinsic value of a bill. This is not really serious when we see that it is the way it goes. So, I take advantage of this motion to ask all members of the House to stop some time and set up to change what is wrong in the parliamentary system and sometimes brings the government to use unilaterally what it is agreed to call coerci-tive means to pass a bill. This is not normal. And being serious people, we could remedy this.

To conclude with, I repeat my suggestions: first, we should have a really free vote from each hon. member in this House; second, we should have sessions at a determined date so that the debates are not unduly extended; and third, we should have in advance a determined agenda of the government's intentions with the order they want to follow for the study of the different bills during the session. So we would not need this Standing Order 75C any more which whether we like it or not cannot be accepted by people who are really serious.

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the debate is starting to turn and transform itself into a general debate on our Standing Orders, the procedure, the rights of the members to speak about democracy, and finally all our institutions. To my mind, those who are endeavouring to steer the debate in that direction are merely trying to create a smokescreen to hide the real issue. And that is, that 47 speakers have already spoken for 19 hours on a two-clause bill. Which brings up this question: Is it not enough that 47 hon. members spent 19 hours speaking on two clauses? My answer is this: That is quite enough. And that is the first reason that led the government to have recourse, for the first time, I believe, to Standing Order 75C.

The other reason is that no other agreement was reached between the parties of the opposition and the government. A while ago we heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) say that we could have come to an agreement. But that is crying over spilt milk. Although it has been impossible to come to an agreement for at least two weeks, we know that House leaders are meeting to discuss this topic after systematically refusing to give at least summary indications to the government House leader as to whether or not it would be possible to come to an agreement.

Having precluded all possibility to come to an understanding, they now come to the House to say: "If only the government were not so rigid and did not demand the implementation of Standing Order 75C! They even go so far as to say: If the government had not been so stupid, we could have reached an agreement. If this could have been done, it would have been before, but that did not come to pass. Now clause Standing Order 75C is being implemented and it seems to me that it is very useful. I contend that hon. members of the opposition who are against it and who are trying to put democracy on trial should conduct opinion polls in their constituencies just as we do on the government side of the House, they would then realize that the people have had debates which drag on and on in the House of Commons, and that they, the taxpayers deem inefficient.

November 13, 1975

I have been told so in the course of the seven years that I have been a member. Never has a week gone by without a voter telling me, especially now that we are a majority government: I wonder how you, the majority government, cannot pass such and such measures? Then, Mr. Speaker, we have to spend minutes and hours explaining the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to these persons, trying to convince them that the government does not control Parliament, but that in fact the members do, and that the opposition often decides when such measure will be passed, because of the number of members it wishes to have heard. The truth is that we use Standing Order 75C because it is about time, because enough is enough and because we have to reach a decision.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I wanted to be heard, because I wished to give some details. Canadians are looking forward to see this bill go further and I am in a good position to know it, as chairman of the committee.

And I can tell you that there are 22 witnesses, I have the list here, who are waiting to appear before the committee and who have been calling me for months every week to ask what is happening in this House or how come we cannot stop those interminable palavers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we will indeed do it through Standing Order 75C. I should like all members to note that those who rose on the other side against the motion are not members of the opposition who sit on the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts because these members are also asking me when the bill will be referred to the committee.

And yet hon, members of the opposition who sit on the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts are certainly most interested to see that this bill receive fair treatment but they are the first to understand that after 47 speakers and 19 hours of debate it is time to refer the bill to the committee. They are eager to see the witnesses appear before them. The people who are most interested, those who are affected by this bill and who wish to appear before the committee, the members of the opposition, the members of the Committee on Broadcasting, Film4 and Assistance to the Arts ask me if they will have the opportunity to meet those people and talk to them in person. Let us stop making this seem like a debate on democracy, let us be honest and realize that some filibusters must stop and that time has come to put an end to this one.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Housing-Request for

Time Allocation Motion

assurance no interference with installation of infrastructure to service development in southwest part of city; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Communications-Alleged deterioration of telephone communications systems-Suggested denial of rate increases pending improvement.

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), the chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, suggested that this legislation will affect most directly the witnesses who are to appear before the committee. It is obvious that he has missed the mark completely. It is the people of Canada who will be the most affected by this legislation. It is they who will suffer or benefit from it.

The May 9 committee minutes which the hon. member mentioned record the comments of a government member who coined a phrase when addressing those comments to the minister, "culture paranoia." That is a good term; it is descriptive; it describes perfectly the government's mental health, not only about culture but also about open debate. The government cannot stomach sustained 3'/2-hour opposition. It cannot stand open debate which examines and displays to the public view the inadequacies and fallacies of this legislation.

The minister made some very specious and fatuous comments about the procedure of the House and his respect for that procedure. What has not been pointed out is that it is his lack of respect for procedure in the House that has brought us to this pass. The minister has mentioned outside the House that the deadline for this legislation is January 1. The effect will then be felt by the Canadian people. That is why the government has to impose closure. If the government is going to save face for the minister and for itself, it will have to see this debate through, and through in a hurry. Otherwise, the minister will have to backtrack-and that is some thing he cannot do; at least, he does not enjoy it.

Two weeks ago the minister was interviewed over CBC radio. He was asked whether there was a lot of opposition

Time Allocation Motion

to this bill. His answer was something like this, "Oh, no; just a few insignificant members." That quotation may not be quite accurate, but it is the essence of what the minister said.

Mr. Faulkner:

It is not even close to accurate. It is a distortion. Let us see the transcript.

Mr. Friesen:

I have been wondering ever since if some of those "insignificant members" are on the government backbenches. That is an indication of the minister's respect for parliament and the parliamentary process.

This is an issue we cannot avoid. It is censorship not only in the legislation but now in the process by which we come to this legislation. I am waiting to meet the 22 witnesses who will come before the committee. I trust there will be a lot more who will be added to the list. I am thinking of some who I am sure are not on the list. I hope the government is open enough to accept suggestions and will include witnesses who may not yet be on the list. I hope it will extend the courtesy of open debate and examine this legislation in that light and spirit so that we will have the best possible legislation for the people of Canada.

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to muzzle this House and bring in closure, notice of which he gave yesterday just prior to Your Honour recognizing me to speak on Bill C-58, one or two points have again to be drawn to the attention of this House. Members of the House have a responsibility to present the views of their constituents. This might be regarded as insignificant by some. However, I am surprised at the number of people who have written to me, and I understand other members have had similar responses, to specifically express their viewpoint on Bill C-58. The viewpoint they have expressed overwhelmingly is that they do not favour government interference in the existence of Reader's Digest or Time Canada.

The government says that all this closure motion will do is to take Bill C-58 from second reading in the House of Commons to the committee stage for examination. I must point out that the only way we can get the government to react is to keep on hammering in the House on a specific issue. When a matter comes to committee, the majority that the government enjoys is used in the same way as it is used in the House of Commons: they do not necessarily look at amendments to improve legislation but view them as a mad means by which the opposition is trying to embarrass the government into substantially changing legislation.

The government reminds me of the story of the farmer and his mule. One day he loaned the mule to his neighbour. The neighbour could not get the mule to work. The owner said there was no problem. He picked up a fence post which was lying nearby, hit the mule over the head, and it immediately started to work. When the neighbour asked why he did that, the farmer replied, "First you have to get his attention". That is how we have to handle this government. It seems we must make speeches for days and days before we can get their attention. Thousands of letters from ordinary citizens must be sent to this government before it will respond, if it responds at all. The way it is

responding in this case is to muzzle parliament by bringing in closure.

We have questioned the government about the manner in which Reader's Digest and Time must become sufficiently Canadian in order to survive in this country. The government did not give us the details until just a short while ago when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) tabled them in the House. We have had 3V4 hours of debate. The real reason this legislation is now before us is that the President of the Privy Council and the government whip cannot guarantee how many government members will abstain because they would like to vote against Bill C-58. I know they have been receiving the same correspondence as members on this side. Therefore, the muzzle is not only on parliament as such; it has been placed on members of the government.

As my colleague pointed out, of those members on the government side who spoke, one-third spoke against the bill. What about the minister? He says it is 11 months since the bill was given first reading and, therefore, placed before the people of Canada. It almost seems that he believes if a bill is on the order paper long enough, even though it is not debated, it should be passed simply for that reason. That is the conclusion that can be drawn from that statement.

The real issue is that almost everything the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has touched has gone bad. Consider the criticism we hear today about the CRTC and Canadian content and the meddling of the CRTC not only on Canadian content on television but on the cable question. The minister has touched on all those areas.

The same thing with the CBC. The minister, again, has made many Canadians take notice of what is happening in the CBC. But I am sure what has really happened is that the minister has come on hands and knees, grovelling to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and saying; Let's bring back Bill C-58 because my personal reputation is at stake." That is why he had to get the use of closure, to show that he is tough, that he has clout within the cabinet when in fact he is just a lightweight. Maybe he is also one of the nobodies the Prime Minister described us as being some time ago. That is why he wants to have closure brought in. That is why he wants to show Canadians that the cabinet must now support him. Because it was my understanding about two weeks ago that it was very likely Bill C-58 would not be brought back to the House, that there was a lot of cabinet opposition to the bill and the cabinet would just as gladly like to see it die and not see the light of day any more.

However, that would have brought into question the reputation of the minister and it would have brought into question the guarantees he has given to various Canadian associations, not least of which are Maclean's magazine and the Canadian Periodical Publishers Association. So he had to come to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and he had to go to the Prime Minister and literally beg for his political life. That is why closure is upon the House.

There are issues which are important, and this is one of them. When Canadians speak, I believe parliament should listen, and the government has not listened. They have

November 13, 1975

muzzled us. It is not as important that they have muzzled us as they have muzzled those people who have responded to the issue of Bill C-58. It is a sad day and what I said yesterday I repeat today: I hope members of the government party, the backbenchers who are opposed to the bill, and especially those who are opposed to the methodology by which it is being rammed through the House, will get up and speak not only in the House of Commons by their vote but also in the inner councils of their party and say to the members in the front row that the method used is wrong and more freedom should be granted in the expression of the Canadian will, which I believe the government at this time is not doing.

Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and speak for this motion with respect to Standing Order 75C, although I think the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in his speech this afternoon has more than justified any reason for the use of that Standing Order. However, I am astonished at the tone of this debate. Having spent six days on this subject, and in particular yesterday, to say that little has been said by the opposition is quite true. The statement of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) has been publicized for at least two weeks, but nothing-or very little-was said about it yesterday. In fact, it was a repetitive session of listening to editorials which we have all received from the people who sent them to the official opposition. Again, I think it has not been clarified here that Standing Order 75C is not closure; it is a motion to allocate time.

Oh, oh!

Miss Campbell:

We have already heard one hon. member saying where closure comes from; it came from the Rt. Hon. Sir Bobert Borden sometime in the past.

A rather obscure Tory.