Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):

Mr. Speaker, I had not in any way anticipated taking part in this debate, but I find it necessary, having regard to the way the rights of parliament are being tramped on, to speak and to speak very definitely and clearly. I am very concerned about the way things are going here. Indeed, I will deal with this on Monday. I find it difficult to understand why within the last couple of weeks a motion I made was not referred to in Hansard but was deleted. It was a motion I moved, seconded by my friend, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), which now is a complete deletion from Hansard. If we get to the point where motions made in this House can be deleted because they do not meet with the finer sensibility of those in authority, then this parliament ceases to exist.

I am going to deal with that very clearly and definitely because what is happening here today is further evidence of the way in which parliament is being emasculated by this government. I am referring, of course, to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) in which he asks for the deletion of clause 11(4), which provides that there can be a mandatory allocation of supplies as a result of anticipated shortages, and that there can be an objection raised thereto. Then subclause (4) says:

At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the third sitting day following the commencement of consideration of a motion of which notice was given under subsection (2), or at such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, the Speaker, shall put the question forthwith without further debate.

What is the reason for that? Yesterday when speaking in Vancouver the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke of creeps.

I did not intend to speak today, but when I looked up the meaning of the word "creep', I thought that it aptly described the kind of creeping thing that is creeping into parliament so that more and more this institution is being undermined by a government that has no regard for it.

I was interested in finding the meaning of "creep". I looked it up and found that it is "nervous shrinking or shiver of dread". Certainly the way this government is postponing the calling of an election would indicate that the creeps are over there.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Creep. This government is afraid of an election. The Prime Minister travels and faces university audiences. I can understand that because there is some intelligence there, and they proved it by their reaction yesterday. Creep, that is what this government is doing. It is bringing forth major matters of legislation at a time when it is expected an election will take place, which has been postponed from time to time by the Prime Minister because he is afraid to bring in a section such as this. It simply places parliament in the position of being a pawn under the control of a majority government. I would have more to say about that were we not waiting to vote on this amendment by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.

The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has stood and pointed out the danger. If the minister wanted to establish for himself a reputation for preserving parliament, he would ask those surrounding him to vote for this amendment. For if it is defeated, it is all over. The government can do what it will and pass whatever regulations it chooses, because at the end of three days a vote will take place regardless of the merits or demerits. Already having this power, why does the government

March 16, 1979

Energy Supplies

want to repeat it? It is this kind of thing which is causing people concern, and they are learning a great deal as a result of TV. They are finding it difficult to understand some of the frivolities. After all, we are always serious in the House of Commons or we would not last very long. A sense of humour one must have, but across this country today people are asking themselves: "What is the attitude of this government? They give us answers that are not true."

I have had questions on the order paper since November 12 and November 22, I believe, which have not been answered. They are perfectly simple questions. The only reason that they are not answered is that the government is afraid of what the answers will be and that they will as a consequence be embarrassed. Trust cannot be built in this House of Commons that way. Parliamentary underlings cannot be deciding what questions shall or shall not be asked.

I asked another question, I believe around February 15 or February 20, which will be of interest to hon. members from Quebec, about how Levesque got the Legion of Honour. It is just a question because I see a nice relationship between Levesque and his former pal, the Prime Minister. Why do we not get an answer? I asked the Speaker in a letter to do something, and he said that there was nothing he could do. Yet the other day in the House I found out in consequence of an admission that he had informed the CBC that only certain selective things can be placed before parliament.

Another example is the Treu case. Treu was treated like a reprobate. What about "Go-go-Goyer"? We paid out $10,000 for that matter without any justification whatever. 1 am simply pointing out-and it is as disturbing to me as it is to all Canadians-that we have come to the point where we cannot believe anything which this government says. It either refuses to answer when it will be embarrassed, or the answers which it gives are given with a total disregard for the facts.

I simply ask of the minister that he establish for himself a record of an appreciation of parliament not by wave of the hand but by simply saying, "We do not need the power, we are not going to push it through and we will simply permit this subsection (4) in the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to be accepted." If he does that he will do more for parliament than anything else he could possibly do. He could at least show that he has a respect and an appreciation for parliament and that he does not intend to ride rough-shod over an opposition that produces an amendment to a provision which he does not need. If he does not need it, why does he ask for it?

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I have no objection to questions, but we are trying to get questions answered by the government now. I hope she will be more successful in any that she asks.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Yes, I will.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

The hon. minister makes his finest contribution with a wave of his marshal hand. That is the most intelligent thing that he does. As a matter of fact, if we were in committee and called an adjournment we would be out, because we would not be able to hang around for a couple of hours until we got the necessary majority.

I am concerned about what is happening. I will go into some detail next week on this matter, but a motion which I had made was deleted from Hansard. It was deleted from the blues because it did not meet with the pleasure of those in charge. Once we reach the point where things which are said in this House and a motion which is made can be removed, then we are in a serious position in so far as this parliamentary system is concerned.

When I see this particular section, I simply ask one question. I am not going to speak at length at all. This parliament is a farce today, held over and over and over. Why? Because, to use the Prime Minister's expression-what is the word he used?