1944-04-25

[Stage Direction]
On the order of motions:
Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Revenue):: I should like to clarify the previous statement I made on March 27 concerning the extension of time for the payment of income tax by individuals. Strictly interpreted the statement would exclude those taxpayers who pay their taxes on the quarterly 
instalment plan. I should like to make it clear that taxpayers who have estimated their tax on a quarterly instalment basis, as required by the Income War Tax Act, will be granted until August 31 to pay, without interest, any additional tax that may be owing over and above what was estimated.



CONSIDERATION IN COMMITTEE OF REPORT OP SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 7, consideration in committee of the report of the special committee on the revision of standing orders, Mr. Bradette in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: The first amendment proposed is to standing order 9, which at present reads as follows:
Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered upon the minutes, unless demanded by five members.
The amendment proposed is as follows:
And every member present in the chamber when the question is finally put by Mr. Speaker shall be obliged to vote, and if he does not vote Mr. Speaker shall call upon him to vote and his name shall be recorded accordingly. - If he persists in not voting he may be named by Mr. Speaker for having violated a standing order of the house.


Mr. GRAYDON:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the procedure you are now adopting is that which was agreed upon unanimously at a previous sitting, when this report was discussed. But it would appear that this procedure would bar any general discussion with respect to this matter, and I rather fancy one or two hon. members in any event would wish to make some general observations before going into the more limited discussion on the amendments to the various standing orders.


Mr. POULIOT:: 
Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very short comment upon what has been said in this matter. I believe the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Pouliot) is somewhat beside the point when he refers to the first part of the report as being a preamble. It is not a preamble, except in a very general sense. Certainly it is not a preamble such as one finds at the beginning of a bill.
But the hon. member is quite correct in his statement that when a committee of this kind reports it thereupon ceases to exist. That will be found in paragraph 664 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which states:
If a committee at the conclusion of their inquiry, make a final report to the fiouse, the sittings of the committee are assumed to have been closed, and if further proceedings were desired, it would be necessary to revive the committee.
That does not matter so much at the moment, except that I believe Mr. Speaker . told us the last time the matter was discussed that the committee might further consider the matter and make further representations. That, of course, would be impossible under the circumstances.
The leader of the opposition raised a further point of order. He said that some members might wish to speak on the general aspect of the report. I would also point out that in the earlier part of the report-which the chairman appears to have ignored, because he begins in the middle of it, at page 4-recommendations
are made. What are we going to do with them?
I say that there is a definite recommendation by the committee, which reads as follows:
We therefore recommend that, when the yearly estimates have been brought down, one day a week be set aside for consideration of supply.
Then there is the further definite recommendation :
Our recommendation is that, when there is reason to believe that debate will be protracted, parties and groups recognized in the house shall confer and make arrangements-[DOT]
And so on. It provides that groups shall get together and do something about it, a procedure which I submit is quite illegal.
There are two definite recommendations. What are we going to do about them? Because, the amendments to the standing orders having been considered, I presume the thing will conclude. Or are we to go backwards and begin again? Would it not be better to do as the leader of the opposition has suggested, namely, begin at the beginning and deal with all the recommendations, after having a general debate? The debate was by no means concluded when the matter was up some time ago.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Chairman, might I say a word for purposes of expedition. It will be noted that on March 7 Mr. Speaker closed the debate, as it appears at page 1262 of Hansard, with these words:
I therefore suggest that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again on another day when, if the committee so desires, we may deal with the amendments which are printed on pages 149 to 152 of Votes and Proceedings.
I am suggesting that if we make the progress which I am assuming we would make in connection with the specific amendments to the rules of the house, we should vote upon them as soon as we can. We can give some indication as to whether we are against them or in favour of them, and have some action in the matter.
Ten specific recommendations are made by the committee. I believe the committee was unanimous in respect of most of them. But on the other hand I do not think it would insist upon any if the house were against them. In my view the essential procedure this afternoon is to find out upon what the house agrees, and to do it with all possible expedition. I do not think debate will help us much in regard to these specific recommendations. I suggest we leave the generalizations and the introductory features mentioned, so that we may deal with the specific amendments suggested by the committee.
Rules of the House


Gordon Graydon: May I speak again on a point of order? In my view it would be unfortunate if this debate were to be extended to any great length.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I cannot hear the leader of the opposition.


Gordon Graydon: I am not disagreeing with my hon. friend. I try to speak as loudly as I can on these occasions, so that he will be able to hear. I agree to this extent with the Minister of Pensions and National Health, that perhaps it would be unwise, unless there is some special reason for so doing, to have an extended general debate in the matter. Nevertheless there are a number of members who, if the procedure were directed along more restricted channels, would be deprived of an opportunity to speak. Some hon. members who spoke on the earlier occasion had the advantage of speaking generally, and if the debate were restricted I believe those of us who perhaps now have something to say along general lines would suffer an injustice. I think it would be unfair to make, that restriction, even at the expense of extending the debate a little longer than might normally be required.
When Mr. Speaker on the earlier occasion made his observations at the conclusion of that sitting, I do not think he had in mind any curtailment of the rights of those who might wish to speak in a general way, and in respect of the general aspects of the matter.
The report dealt not only with specific matters affecting changes in the rules, but it went on in some detail to philosophize somewhat in respect of rules generally, and house deportment. It is my belief that we would make just as much headway, and perhaps in the end save considerable time, if hon. members were given leeway in the same manner as obtained on the earlier occasion. I have always felt that when there is an attempt-I am not saying any such attempt is being made on this occasion-to curtail general discussion in the house it takes longer than if we proceed in the regular way. If hon. members have something to say we might as well allow them to have their say at this time. It is my suggestion, in order that the matter may be clarified, that we go on with the general discussion, beginning where we left off on the earlier occasion. Then, having finished that, we could get down to the particular items. I fancy it would not take quite so long then to deal with those items.


Mr. CRERAR:: How shall we determine when that debate is finished?


Mr. GLEN:: When I spoke at the last sitting of the committee in connection with the rules' 
I did not intend there'should be any limitation of discussion on the part of any hon. member of the committee. I was concerned, of course, principally with the passing of the amendments that will have to be discussed. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) speaks of this as a preamble. It is not a preamble; it is simply the bases upon which the committee is being asked to pass amendments to the rules. When the amendments to the rules are being discussed there is nothing to prevent any hon. member of the committee from referring to what is a commentary on the reasons why the amendments were being asked for. But in view of the attitude of the hon. members who have spoken, which I think is the mind of the hon. members of the committee, I should be willing and agree that there should be the general discussion to which the leader of the opposition has referred. But I would point out that we are still on the first portion of the report, which is, if I may say so, the historical part of the reasons for the amendments. The matters before the committee, after all, are the amendments of the rules. That is the question for the committee. It is a matter wholly within the hands of the committee. Our committee have met and have reported. It is now within the judgment of the committee of the whole whether these few rules shall be amended or not. In so far as the committee is concerned it is entirely in the hands of the committee of the whole, which is now sitting.	.


Mr. ROY:: After listening this noon to the finest music and the most harmonious melodies coming from the tower of the 'parliament buildings, it is painful to be confronted in this chamber with a report submitted for the purpose of restricting some of the most important rights, privileges and liberties of the people's representatives in parliament.
I would have no objection to most of the amendments submitted in this report. For the moment I shall not state any objection I may have to the amendments to standing orders 9, 12, 31, 37, 40, 43 and 44; but I am strongly opposed to the proposed amendment to standing order 49. This amendment completely contradicts the principles set forth in the presentation or preamble, if we can call it that, which appears in the report of the special committee.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would ask the hon. member to speak to the point of order raised by the leader of the opposition. We are discussing the point of order at the present time.


John Horne Blackmore: I believe we should go on with the fullest, frankest and freest dis-

Rules of the House
cussion of this whole matter. Parliament is the place where the people's representatives meet to talk. While the committee which considered the matter had a good chance to go into all the aspects of the proposed changes, a large number of the members of parliament have not had such an opportunity. I believe it will be altogether beneficial to have a complete discussion in this committee, even if it takes us a day or two. Let us remember that the rules as they stand to-day are the result of the experience of our forefathers over hundreds of years. We cannot afford lightly to change them. We should give most careful consideration to every proposed change. I therefore favour allowing complete, frank and general discussion before we proceed with the items.


Mr. CHURCH:: I believe the point raised is either to call for a general or a clause by clause discussion of this report. There is one point I should like to point out. I think it would save time if we took up the report as a whole first and then considered the list of very moderate changes. The reference to the committee called for a revision of the standing orders of the house. It was a broad resolution and gave the committee the power to go much farther than they have gone. I refer to one matter that does not appear in the list, rule 9. In the British House of Commons under their rule 9 private members and all the members may question the government, ask questions which are not on the order paper, up to a quarter to four. They can practically cross-examine the ministers on any questions of urgent public importance. What is our rule? We have to move on an urgent matter the adjournment of the house and get twenty members to stand up. One may wish to question the government on one of the most important emergency questions that could arise, but unless one gets the support of twenty members one cannot do it. Take a question like housing. I could not ask a question on it to-day under our rules without moving the adjournment of the house and having twenty members stand. Even then the Speaker automatically has the power to say whether in his opinion it is an urgent matter. That I think is unwise. I suggest that general discussion take place first.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We have been discussing the questions asked by the leader of the opposition. The hon. member for Temiscouata mentioned a preamble. I think that has been answered. There is no preamble, only an introduction. I believe I know the consensus of the committee. I believe hon. members want a general discussion. It is recognized that this is not an ordinary measure. I believe 100-147
it would be in order to allow a general discussion. There is no possibility of amendments as far as the introduction is concerned, but there is a possibility of amendments when the proposed amendments are brought before the committee for discussion.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Before we begin the general discussion, may we have some definite ruling from the Chair? After all, what we are dealing with here is a report of a special committee. Is the Chair proposing that we shall first of all have a general discussion and then consider the report section by section? If we have the general discussion, would amendments then be in order? Will there be a vote on the report as a whole? These amendments are not a series of proposals; they are brought down as one proposal as a report of the committee. I should like the Chair to make that clear; otherwise we may do a lot of rambling.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. I think there are ten distinct amendments. Each one is separate and each one should be dealt with separately. We should take the judgment of the committee as a whole on each one, and either reject it or adopt it, as the committee so decides. It is impossible to discuss the report as a whole, because the committee may agree with some of the changes and oppose others.


Alan Webster Neill: How long are we going to take to dispose of the recommendations contained in what has been called the beginning of the report? We are starting in the middle. Are we going to go back to that, or ignore it?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre)-: I should be inclined to ignore it.


Mr. RALSTON:: One who proposes anything in connection with the rules has to take some responsibility. The hon. member has asked a pertinent question, namely, when do we proceed from the general to the particular, and when do we know that we have finished with the general discussion? If, Mr. Speaker, who is carrying this particular item on the order paper, would consent, and if the committee would consent, even though it may be irregular, that the first item might be called as it has been called now, with no, limitations imposed except those which are imposed by the subjects discussed in the so-called preamble or the general introduction to the report; on that item full discussion might then take place on any of the subjects which are in the minds of hon. members. When that item is disposed of, the general discussion would be concluded, and we would then proceed with the different amendments which are to be dealt with. 1

Rules of the House

can understand that the general discussion in some respects will not be germane to the particular amendment to standing order 9, which is the first item. But at the same time if we all agree that it would mark the termination of the general discussion when the amendment is actually passed or disposed of, then the other items could be proceeded with. If we adopt that procedure we may get along.
I am sure that in amending the rules of the house we do not want to transgress the present rules more than is necessary and make the discussion any less regular than it would be under the rules we are endeavouring to amend. I cannot see how we are ever going to do anything practical if we just have a general discussion without terminating it with some sort of action by the committee on the items itself respecting standing order 9. It seems to me that the method proposed might provide a termination point for the general discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, for the last few seconds the discussion has been over spilt milk. You have rendered a very wise decision. You have decided according to the wish of the committee. This is the very best kind of decision that anyone in the chair can render.
There are things that I disapprove and others that I approve. One of the things that I approve very highly is the fact that the Prime Minister notified the house a week ago that to-day, Tuesday, April 25, we would take up this matter. As a rule at eleven o'clock at night the government does not know what will come before the house the day following, but in this case we were told a week ahead. That is a good practice, which should be followed with respect to the agenda for every day of the session. Members should be notified long in advance of what is to come up on certain days, so that they can prepare themselves for discussion.
I have said that the first part of the committee's report is a preamble. His Honour the Speaker said that it was the basis for all the amendments proposed to the rules. That shows the importance of the matter, and I wonder if that preamble should not be read in' the same fashion as a prologue to a Shakespearian tragedy. And what would be the tragedy? The tragedy would be that each member of parliament would put his head on the block, to deprive himself of rights that our forefathers gained for us.
What was the purpose of the amendments to the rules in 1927? It was to allow the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and some of the cabinet ministers to use some of the time of the private members; it gave them full latitude at the expense of the

rights of private members, whose speeches were curtailed to forty minutes. The rights of members of parliament were taken away by those amendments, and the same sort of thing is proposed to-day. Why is it done? It is because of the fear that the government and the opposition have of the yellow press, which has been complaining, not of the government, not of the opposition, but of the role of parliament. I defy the press tycoons of Montreal, Winnipeg or anywhere else to discuss that matter with a member of parliament who knows what the rights of a member of parliament are. What are the rights of a member of parliament? It is shameful that in this country those who do not know anything about the work performed by members of parliament dare to criticize us and vilify us before the people. Long enough have members of parliament been considered nonentities. Long enough have members of parliament not been consulted on matters of great national concern, but have been told instead that such and such a matter is a military secret or that it was none of their business to be informed of the progress of the administration, whether in the right way or in the wrong way. But this is an abdication of the rights of parliament to be signed by ourselves. Are members of parliament going to sign the decree of execution of their own rights, the rights for which our forefathers fought so hard more than a century ago?
And now because some tycoon who is receiving a big rent for the selective service administration building here in Ottawa, and another one who is after all the ministers who have contracts for fine paper in Montreal, and another one who is here all the time seeking jobs, are so much concerned about the vigilance of members of parliament in denouncing them when they get things like that at the expense of the taxpayer, we are to have amendments to the rules of the house. I denounce these tycoons most bitterly as the enemies and foes of the common people. We must be respected, and we must be respected by the government as members of parliament if we want to be respected by our own constituents. We deserve more respect precisely from those who desire to curtail the rights of members of parliament to denounce them when they do wrong. That is why I feel so much humiliated on reading the preface which is the basis of the amendments, these uncalled for and untimely amendments that are proposed.
Why should members of parliament willingly abandon their own rights? Some members who sat on that committee had a smile on their lips. It would save the time of the

Rules of the House
House of Commons, they said. Would it not save time if we had proper accounts? Would it not save time if the public accounts were just as good to-day as they were when Mr. Robb was Minister of Finance and Mr. Gonthier, a French Canadian, was auditor general?
But now it is different. Even the leader of the opposition, who is a genial fellow, rises in his place and says, "I do not want to take up too much of the time of the house." He has the right to take up as much time of the house as he wishes. Why should he apologize when he rises to speak, if he has something important to say? There is no reason for his apologizing at all, or for any member of parliament excusing himself for rising in this House of Commons to voice the complaints of his constituents. I do not see why there should be such an inferiority complex in members of parliament towards the government or towards the leader of the opposition or of any group.
Once someone wrote to the chairman asking him if there was not a precedent for some people speaking in committee. There are no precedents, Mr. Chairman, and if there were one, it would be the precedent of service to the country by a member of parliament. Long service? I never claimed it. I believe we are all equals. But I believe that my colleagues and myself deserve the respect of the Canadian people, and it is shameful, sir, that some press tycoons, taking advantage of the fact that they do not sign their articles, throw insults in the faces of members of parliament.
Sir, we must have some dignity. We have some rights. Let us keep them. I strongly protest against the three first pages of this so-called prologue or preamble. It is shameful. There is no reason to have those three pages in the record of parliament. It must be voted down; and then I shall be ready to discuss the amendments without fear or favour.
In my view all members of parliament should be on the same footing. There is no reason why anyone, whether the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, should be entitled to any more time than the least back-bencher on either side of the house. All members of parliament, whether on the treasury benches or to the rear of them, should have the same rights. I do not see why members have to curtail their speeches to forty minutes, except it be to give more time to others who are regarded as more important than private members in this chamber. But why should that be? It is opposed to the first principles of democracy.
We contend that Canada should be on an equal footing with other nations; let us in the first place be equals amongst ourselves. That is the first thing. Then, let us have enough esprit de corps to join together to censure those journalists who spend their time in throwing contempt on members of parliament. Personally I am indifferent to their attacks; I have proved that again and again. They do not impress me. When anyone does his duty, why should he be fearful of criticism?
I ask my fellow members kindly to consider these matters, to read the first three pages of the paper which is before them; and then I invite them to reflect upon what they will say to their constituents when the general elections come, when someone may read tc them the first sentence of this report:
Your committee, in the performance of the important duty assigned to it by the house, has taken into account the existence of general criticism of parliament both by members and representative citizens.
Who are the members of parliament who have criticized parliament itself? Where are they? If there are any, let them raise their hands. I do not see anyone raise his hand. The chamber is full of members, but not one has raised his hand, and there is no one who will dare to do that. Then, who are these representative citizens? One daily newspaper in Ottawa, one in Montreal, one in Winnipeg, have spoken against the fact that members of parliament are voicing the complaints of their constituents here in this chamber. That is what we are here for.
I have said enough to bring to the attention of hon. members this most important matter, which has been overlooked by all those who were on that committee. It is not by kneeling down before the press that parliament will be respected. We can defend ourselves; our parliamentary life is an open book, and they have only to look at the records of parliament to see that we are not responsible for the legislation which is passed by a stroke of the pen by some individuals, contrary to the old way of passing legislation. But nevertheless we are doing our best to help our constituents -in a different way, if you wish. I admit that my hon. friends opposite are animated by as much good-will as those on this side of the chamber. I have never questioned their good-will, nor have I ever imputed motives to them, not merely because I desire to act in accordance with the rules of the house, but also to show my good-will towards them. I have been associated with members of parliament for twenty years, and I do not complain about that association. I think that members of parliament are a lot of good
Rules of the House

fellows, working together in difficult circumstances, trying to do the best they can for their people, and they deserve something better than this. If someone says "This is an innocuous remark, you must pass it over and pay no attention to it"-as the Minister of Pensions and National Health has just said-that is childish. We must consider what will happen to our official status if this is passed; we must weigh it on its own merit. My fear is that it will be a stigma which will be attachsd to members of parliament, especially to the one who has just spoken, and who will be defeated at the next election by a tremendous majority-and for the good of the country-and that hon. members will sink down under public opprobrium.


James Allison Glen: The leader of the house made the suggestion that in order to obtain some finality with regard to our discussion to-day the first amendment should be considered as an open amendment with a general discussion to take place upon it; and after that discussion has been had, and the first amendment passed or rejected, that we go on to the other amendments. He put the question to me whether I would be agreeable to that. I of course am perfectly agreeable to it. Perhaps it can be understood that on the first amendment there shall be the general discussion which would have taken place in the ordinary course prior to it, and when that is completed and the first amendment passed, we can then proceed to the other amendments on their terms.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask the Speaker a question? While that seems a very suitable solution, there is this objection to it. When you are dealing with the amendment to standing order 9, it is to be agreed that we are to discuss the general subject, and when that passes we go on to the next amendment. But that will not afford us an opportunity to vote on these two other recommendations which the report contains and which do not happen to be amendments of standing orders. That is where the mistake has arisen. Certain recommendations have been made. Some of them are quite good and worthy of consideration, and we ought to vote on them. We want an oportunity to vote on each one of them. If that could be arranged, I think the thing would go along quite smoothly.
As regards what has been termed the preamble, the Minister of Pensions and National Health suggested that we should "forget it". Well, that is not a very polite way of dealing with a recommendation of the committee. I believe that the Prime Minister said the other day that we should regard the first portion of the report with something like mental

reserve-not pay too much attention to it, he said. But that is not my view. There is a definite recommendation in the earlier part of the report on page 2. I want an opportuntiy to discuss it and to vote on it. That seems reasonable enough.


James Allison Glen: What part is that?


Alan Webster Neill: In what is called the preamble. I read it out a moment ago. They make two definite recommendations:
We therefore recommend that, when the yearly estimates have been brought down, one day a week be set aside for consideration of supply. If that is done, the house is not likely to find itself under the necessity of passing a great part of the estimates in the dying days of the session.
I think that is a good idea; I would vote for it. But that is not the point. The next recommendation is:
Our recommendation is that, when there is reason to believe that debate will be protracted, parties and groups recognized in the house shall confer-[DOT]
It does not say, with whom.
-and make arrangements either for allotting days or laying any plan for saving time. . . .
And so on.
I strongly object to that-there is the more need for discussion. But let us do something about it; it is a definite recommendation. It is suggested now that we should start in the middle of the report and go on from there, and the minister of pensions says, "Let us forget the first part". I think it would be a good idea to forget the whole thing.


James Allison Glen: I cannot follow the reasoning of the hon. member with regard to the first part of the report. It is not intended that anything in the first part of the report shall be an alteration in the procedure of the house. What is intended by the report dealing especially with the standing orders of the house is what is contained in the latter part of the report, and to that the attention of the committee is recommended. The first portion of the report, to which my hon. friend has referred, is purely the thought of the committee; it is theoretical, it has no bearing, and cannot be amended by anything the committee could do because it does not change the standing orders of the house. All that will be changed, if the report is adopted, are the amendments that are proposed, to be found on page 4.


Alan Webster Neill: How can we accept or reject these recommendations without dealing with them?


James Allison Glen: The hon. member may make his protest with regard to it, and when the time comes, if it ever does, that an amend-

Rules oj the House
ment is made to the standing order, the hon. gentleman will have the right to propose an amendment. At the moment, however, an amendment cannot be moved to the first portion of the report which would have an effect on our standing orders. All that we have to-day before us are the amendments, and these only can alter the standing orders. I suggest to the committee that on the first amendment with which we are dealing the general discussion should take place, and that immediately it is disposed of we proceed to the other amendments.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point raised by the hon. member for Weyburn, which was properly answered by the leader of the house, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), it was the intention of the chair first of all to call the proposed amendments one by one, and that is why the first was called, so as to allow a general discussion.


Alan Webster Neill: That is not the first one.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The first proposed
amendment. There are ten which are enumerated in the document I have before me. In the matter brought up by the leader of the house, as to when the discussion will terminate, we have in this instance a procedure similar to that in connection with the war appropriation bill, and I believe hon. members as well as the minister himself realized that we secured a great deal of cooperation so far as the general discussion was concerned. When we feel that the time has arrived when we can properly proceed with the proposed amendments, the general discussion will be terminated. We will follow the same procedure in this instance as in the war appropriation bill.


Mr. REID:: I think His Honour the
Speaker has clarified in the minds of most hon. members of the committee what it is that we are about to do. It is distinctly understood that the committee is not going to pass, nor will it become the law of the house, what has been termed the preamble. That understanding will obviate a great deal of discussion. I take it from the remarks of the Speaker that we are about either to pass or to reject the recommendations which are numbered, and if passed they will become the rule of the house. But the opening observations of the committee simply stand as their considered opinion and are in no way binding on the members of the committee.


Mr. LOCKHART:: With all due deference to what has been said by the member for New Westminster, my understanding of parliamentary procedure is that when a committee makes a special and final report and
uses such language as "we therefore recommend", which has been referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that recommendation is followed by something that is relevant to it. But can anyone show me where in the recommendations that follow there is any reference to one day a week being set aside for consideration of supply? Yet the committee in their preamble, or whatever you choose to call it, deliberately use these words, "we therefore recommend". I would ask any member of the committee, I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to show me where there is a reference to that language in the recommendations themselves. I suggest that it is superfluous and we ought to clear up that point. I accept, as the member for Comox-Alberni does, this language inserted by a special committee of this house as being definitely a recommendation to the house, and I do not see how it can be discarded as being merely idle and useless words.


Jean-François Pouliot: I move, Mr. Chairman,
that pages 1, 2 and 3 of the introduction be struck out of the report.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It has been moved
that paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the introduction be struck out of the report.


Alan Webster Neill: Pages, not paragraphs.


Jean-François Pouliot: Pages, Mr. Chairman. To support my amendment-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I shall have to rule
the amendment out of order for the reason that the introduction is not before the committee. We have the word of His Honour the Speaker, as everyone will readily see, that we are dealing only with the proposed amendments to the rules of procedure of the House of Commons, so that the introduction is not before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you will permit me,
sir, I submit that what we have before us is not the interpretation of His Honour the Speaker but certain sheets of paper that are here and that we see with our eyes. It is not enough to say that. certain language is not before us. That was not the meaning of my motion at all. What I expected was that the committee would show its disapproval of what is contained in these three pages. It is not a matter of our passing them over. The point is that as members of parliament we cannot accept what has been said in that introduction without becoming the laughingstock of the country, and that is why I have moved to strike out those pages. At present it is not a question of His Honour giving his interpretation. His Honour is not in the chair; it is the chairman who is in the chair.
Rules of the House

I submit that these pages form part of the official .document. I regret that the signature of the chairman of the committee is not on this report, as it should have been if it were a true copy. We always see the signature of the chairman on reports that come from committees. This is a special committee but there is no signature. That, however, is a small point on which I will not insist. I hope that the committee will consider the seriousness of the situation and will not kneel down before those who try to depreciate our parliamentary institutions-those outside the house who do that job. I will therefore ask you, sir, to be good enough to reconsider your ruling. I will not appeal from it, because I do not like that kind of procedure, and I resort to it as little as possible. I hope however you will reconsider that ruling in the light of what has been said, which is an insult as much to you as to any other hon. member of the house, including Mr. Speaker. I protest strongly against it.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Is there a motion before the committee? If there is not a motion I do not see how we can vote on it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member was not in the chamber when I called the first proposed amendment to the attention of the sommittee.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: But there is no motion before the house. *


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes. There is a motion.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: His Honour the Speaker was chairman of this committee. I want to get myself clear on this before we proceed.


An hon. MEMBER:: You had better.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I will refrain from saying what was passing through my mind. I will ask His Honour to clarify this point. Probably I am not as brilliant as my hon. friend across the floor who interrupted. When language like this is used, "we therefore recommend that one day be set aside for supply," why is it that there is no properly written amendment in what follows later on to carry out that recommendation? To me these words are definite. That was in the mind of the committee, and I should like to know why there is no such amendment. I should like to know the reason for that, because these words, "we recommend" appear to me to be one of the most important things * dealt with in the whole report.


James Allison Glen: If the hon. member will look at page 2 of the report he will see these words:
The procedure required to keep this privilege unimpaired


That is with regard to the estimates being referred to a standing committee. Then it goes on:
Certain estimates may be occasionally referred to a select committee in order to ascertain facts which the house desires to know, but this practice should be adopted guardedly and -only in very special circumstances. Your committee does not think it would be advisable to change the present system and it believes that the elasticity of the present rules makes it possible to apply them in new situations from time to time. We, however, desire to submit that considerable time could be saved if the committee of supply sat oftener in the early part of the session. We therefore recommend that, when the yearly estimates have been brought down, one day a -week be set aside for consideration of supply.
The next sentence is:
If this is done the house is not likely to find itself under the necessity of passing a great part of the estimates in the dying days of the session.
It was the thought of the committee that some procedure should be adopted with regard to the estimates, but they were not in a position to suggest an amendment and in fact rather deprecated the idea of making suggestions at this time in regard to the manner of dealing with the estimates.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then that was definitely in the mind of the committee, if they wished to insert that reference into their report.


James Allison Glen: They were definitely dealing with that matter; yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then could you explain why there is no reference to it in the recommendations?


James Allison Glen: I think they were almost unanimously of the opinion that this was not a proper time to make any change with regard to the submission of the estimates to the house, and at the beginning of that paragraph the reasons for that decision are set out. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment which has been moved is not in order. There are no recommendations before the committee in this preamble; there are no amendments set out in pages 1, 2 and 3. At the moment we are dealing only with standing order 9, so that I think the amendment is out of order.


Thomas Reid: If I may say another word, the statement has been made that there is no motion before the committee. I submit that there is a motion before the committee, the motion for further consideration in committee of the whole of the report of the special committee on the revision of standing orders and this is what we are considering to-day. We are considering the revision of the rules; we are

Rules oj the House
revising the standing orders. We are not passing the first three pages; we are dealing with the rules of the house, and that is what is before this committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the special committee sent us a report which contained an introduction. The report was discussed in this committee on a previous occasion, and progress was reported; to-day we are resuming that discussion. The report of the special committee cannot possibly be changed unless it is amended by this committee. No one has the power to delete the introduction to the report that was presented to this house. It was not the report of one or two gentlemen; it was the report of a special committee to the committee of the whole, in which we are now sitting. Now the special committee has vanished, after its final report has been presented, and the committee of the whole is the only body that can change the report. I positively deny what has been said by any minister or any other hon. gentleman to the effect that the first part of the report is not before this committee. It is, by the very fact that no one but this committee has a right to change the report.
My second contention, Mr. Chairman, is that we cannot deal with this report unless it is put in better shape by a revived special committee. Was it not the Prime Minister himself who suggested that the paragraphs should be numbered and who expressed dissatisfaction with the introduction? I agree that the introduction should go; but even if it is not on the pieces of paper which have been placed before you, Mr. Chairman, it is before the committee just the same, because it is part of the report of the special committee to this committee. That being so, I would ask you to reconsider your ruling and to decide that the introduction should be deleted from the report of the special committee, just as it has been deleted from the pieces of paper that are before you. After that is done we will have a breathing spell in which to consider the amendments.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I should like to give my heartiest [DOT]support to the suggestion of the hon. member for Temiscouata; I am in perfect accord with what has been said by him and by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. There must be a reason for everything. If this preamble is not worth looking at, I do not know why it is here. Furthermore, as was pointed out by a previous speaker to my right, this preamble is full of recommendations which are very important, but which are not followed up by suggested amendments in the remainder of the report. If this introduction is not to be
studied before we deal with the amendments there is no need to have it there at all. Moreover, it is dangerous to retain it. Just to give an example of the danger involved in this preamble I should like to quote a few lines from it. At the bottom of page 2 I read this:
Our recommendation is that when there is reason to believe that debate will be protracted, parties and groups recognized in the house shall confer and make ararngements either for allotting days or laying any plan for saving time whilst protecting freedom of speech for every representative of the people who sits in this house.
That is a very important recommendation, and many others are contained in this introduction. If we should take up the amendments and adopt the whole report, the introduction together with its recommendations would have to be adopted as well. That is the danger I want to bring to the attention of the committee. Moreover, not only recommendations of this kind are contained in the preamble; we find also some contradictions of great importance. Hon. members have just heard what I have read from page 2. I say that suggestion is not in accordance with the premise appearing on the first page. It sets forth a principle which is not in accordance with what I have just read.
In the third paragraph of the first page, at line 13 we find this:
Parliament is the assembly of representatives elected by the people where great issues are debated, or should be debated; it is not primarily a body of auditors charged with the inspection of departmental accounts. Freedom of speech is one of the inalienable privileges of members of the House of Commons. It is in truth the privilege of their constituents and it is secured to members not for their personal benefit but to enable them to discharge the funtions of their office. Without it, the essence of the country's liberty does not exist.
Apparently that principle is not taken into account when it is suggested that when debates are protracted there should be some kind of agreement among the recognized groups or parties, and that private members must not have anything to do with any decision so made. Why include the recognized groups? Why not the opposition and the government only, or the government alone? That would look even more like Hitler's way of governing a country.
As I said before, we should study the introduction, and see what we are going to do with it. The amendment proposed to standing order 49 is as follows:
Only one amendment and one subamendment may be made to the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne and to the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply or ways and means.
Rules of the House

Here is an amendment which restricts the very principle set forth in the first page of the introduction. How can we accept this amendment? How can we accept that suggestion with respect to the understanding which should be arrived at among groups or parties, if at the same time we are to recognize this other principle? There is too much contradiction in that. That is why I support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Temiscouata to the effect that either we discuss the introduction fully, before we study the amendments themselves, or that it should be stricken from the report.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, I hardly know where we stand. I understand the hon. member for Temiscouata moved an amendment to delete the introduction, and that you have ruled it out of order. Nevertheless the hon. member who has just taken his seat made a lengthy speech in support of that amendment. Surely we should have matters clear in our minds. I see no reason for such confusion. Mr. Speaker made the situation quite clear. The only observation I would make, possibly to make it somewhat clearer, is that the word "recommend", in the two instances where they occur in the introduction, should be changed to "suggest". I say that because the committee is not, in fact, recommending. There are general matters within the ambit of the government's right in organizing the business of the house. The committee was merely making a suggestion that the government should follow a certain procedure. With this further clarification of what Mr. Speaker has already said I would hope that we might now proceed with the discussion of the specific amendment to the standing order proposed by the committee.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member for Vancouver East has made the suggestion with regard to the word "recommend". I entirely agree that the meaning of the whole paragraph would be more clear in the minds of all hon. members if the word had been "suggest" instead of "recommend". That, I may say, was the intention of the committee. It was not the intention to recommend; rather it was to suggest. The very words in the paragraph indicate that we were making no recommendation; rather it was to be a matter for consideration by the government of the day. The hon. member for Vancouver East is perfectly right when he says that the word "suggest" would convey the meaning of the committee better than the word which was used.


Alan Webster Neill: Unfortunately we are dealing with what was said, not what was thought.


Thomas Langton Church: May I add a word to what I said earlier in the afternoon? First of all may I compliment Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker and the Clerk of the House. These three gentlemen especially have been performing great public services in a time of war.
There is no doubt that in war time, rules are to a great extent unwritten. That has been so in the British parliament. In some instances before us now changes have been very radical, while in others they have been of minor importance. One of the points which I thought might have been considered was considered in England ten years ago. I have in mind parliamentary reform, constitutional reform, cabinet and law reform, and a more equitable division of the work of parliament between the two houses, namely the House of Commons and the one in another place.
In my view more latitude should be allowed for the asking of supplementary questions, more than the three mentioned in the report, especially in a time of war. For instance, it was not until the 119th day of the last session that the matter of foreign affairs was discussed in this house. An amendment has been suggested with respect to questions asked when the orders of the day are called. When the committee reported there was a statement to the effect that no hon. member had written making any request. The fact is that both one year ago' and two years ago I wrote letters of that kind, and gave copies to leaders in the house. It was not necessary, I said, to pass a resolution in order to allow us to put supplementary questions to ministers when the orders of the day are called.
In England standing order 9 provides that questions which have not appeared on the order paper, but which are of an urgent nature and relate either to matters of great public importance or to a rearrangement of the business of the house, may be put at the opening of a sitting, extending from a quarter to three to a quarter to four. Under that rule members have an opportunity practically to cross-examine the ministry in respect of matters of great public importance.
I have in mind a new book issued in 1930 by G. F. M. Campion, then second clerk, now Clerk of the House of Commons at Westminster, who has since been knighted.
I believe the book written by our own learned and able Clerk compares most favourably with this great text book, which, in part, states:
Not later than three o'clock the question hour begins. This is a more important item of

Rules of the House
business than any yet described. It is expected to provide lively moments and seems to be of unfailing interest to members and the public. It is modern and affords a useful method of supervising the administration of the government. Its effectiveness is generally recognized. Questions 'turn a searchlight upon every corner of the public service.' (Lowell, i. 332). Their chief object is 'the explanation to the public of the meaning of political events/ and They are often arranged by the government itself, so as to give them an opportunity of making announcements in a somewhat informal way.' (Redlich, ii. 241 and 242). They are 'serviceable as obviating the necessity in many instances of more extended debate and of motions for papers. (Todd, 1982, ii. 85). And finally, 'questions afford to the private member under modern conditions almost his only opportunity.' (Marriott, i. 571).
Under standing order 1 of our rules, according to the Parliamentary Rules and Forms, so well written and edited by our learned Clerk, in all eases not provided for in our orders, the usages and customs of the British house as in force at the time shall be followed. Under our rules as they are at present an hon. member should have the latitude on the orders of the day of asking these supplementary questions, because it is a useful method of supervising the administration of the government. Its effectiveness is generally recognized. Questions turn a searchlight upon every comer of the public service. Their chief object is the explanation to the public of the meaning of political events, and in the old country they are often arranged by the government itself so as to give them an opportunity of making announcements in a somewhat informal way. I think the rule recommended by this report before us allows only three supplementary questions. In view of the importance of the war I think that more questions than three should be permitted, because it would mean saving time.
There are only one or two other matters that I should like to refer to. I should like to say a word about select committees and special committees of the house with reference to the submitting of expenditures of money to these committees. Very little value has been obtained in that way. The same thing applies to the finding of facts and obtaining of information through committee work. Take the railways and shipping committee. It was a special committee. It has now been made a standing committee. They meet and hold three or four meetings and then adjourn. A report is brought in. At the last session it was brought in the last day but one of the session. There is very little control over those expenditures. Steps were taken in England three hundred years ago to give parliament control over the executive and a civil war was fought there to secure such control. To-day we are back where we were
two hundred years ago. There is a war on and four billion dollars have been expended. What do we know about it? We have the war expenditures committee sitting but we cannot discuss the report. So far as the members of the house are concerned they are forgotten now as a body by their special committees and references to control boards and commissions. Practically all our rights, privileges and functions have been taken away, with the result that the high court of parliament has been turned into something which it was never intended to be. We are a legislative body and those other bodies are created with executive powers. In the olden days under the constitution the executive was the cabinet, but to-day we have such a number of these control bodies and their subcontrols-there are now nearly one hundred -that parliament has divested itself in actual practice of any control over one dollar of expenditures.
What I point out to the committee is this:
I believe the time has come to adopt constitutional reform. I proposed it fifteen or twenty years ago when I first came into the house. I proposed that we adopt the municipal system of supervising the estimates of the public departments. I suggested that the committee of the whole house be given the power to suggest to the minister that for economy purposes he reduce his estimates ten per cent, twenty per cent, thirty per cent or whatever the committee saw fit to do. That is what is done under the municipal organizations where the expenditures of the heads of departments are supervised. Under our constitution, which has been in existence for two hundred years, that cannot be done because if one dollar is struck off the estimates the cabinet must resign and a new election be called. I suggest that something along these lines should be done. I believe that the time has come to assign to the other branch of parliament in another place some executive powers and further powers in war time. They made that reform in England in the House of Lords at least fifteen years ago with the result that when the war came along they were found to be doing good work. The Prime Minister suggested a select committee be appointed to look into the Ottawa agreement. He sug-' gested that that should be a joint committee of the two houses. We have had this committee on the revision of the rules sitting during the war, and some of the recommendations that they have made are very good. But further power by changes of rules should be assigned to the other branch of parliament.
The other matter I should like to refer to has to do with public bills versus private bills.
Rules of the House

There is a whole list of these private bills on the order paper. They come mainly from the other place, since they are largely divorce bills. At the end of the session they are put through. Bills of business concerns originate in the other place and that should as private bills originate here. There should be some check and control over that. Public bills of private members have been relegated to the last page on the order paper. They may as well not be moved. While some of the agencies of these public bills would assist the conduct of public business, parliament has ignored them since the war started and for many years before, and this parliament has been losing its prestige in the country. The taxpayers of the country are the people who pay the bills. The members of the House of Commons do their part, but the large body outside the house, the man in the street and on the bus pays the bills. This is the only forum that I know of where the average man on the street can get his grievances remedied. When this parliament ceases to function as such, parliamentary government is at an end. The private member is the connecting link between the government of the day and the elector, and when he ceases to function efficient parliamentary government is at an end. The rights and privileges of the private member have been curtailed and thus taken away from him. He cannot ask a single emergency question in war time without coming in conflict at times with the rules. We have been very fortunate in our Speaker and Deputy Speaker in that they have sensed the feeling of the house, as has our learned Clerk. But I say, Mr. Chairman, that there could be more latitude given to the consideration of public bills in order to improve the conditions of the taxpayers who pay the bills. They should have precedence over the private bill of some individual or some company that seeks legislation mainly for its own benefit.


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: On page 2
of the report which is now before us, I notice the following:
Your committee, in all its deliberations, has kept in mind the importance of not impairing the rights of minorities.
I believe that we have started the discussion of this report the wrong way in interfering on two different occasions with the rights of minorities. In the first place, I asked one of the pages to bring me a French copy of the report, but the French translation is not yet ready. I do protest, Mr. Chairman-and those who know me are aware that I harbour no feelings of bitter fanaticism-I do protest against the fact that such an important report has not been printed both in French and in

English and distributed to French-speaking members in their own language.
I take this opportunity to protest against the practice which is followed in this house of distributing official documents in one language only.
I should, of course, have liked to have more time at my disposal in order to make a detailed analysis of this report, which amends to a considerable extent the rules of parliamentary procedure.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: For the information of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde), I may say that the committee's report was published in the French language in the French edition of the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons on Friday, March 3, 1944, as well as in the official report of debates on Tuesday, March 7.


Maurice Lalonde: I thank the chairman of
the committee for that information, which I had already obtained, but I do protest against the fact that French copies of the report have not been made available to French-speaking hon. members. The other minority groups to which I refer are able to take care of themselves and I shall not take up their defence. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) has emphasized his opposition to rule 49. On page 9 I notice the following:
The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne covers the whole ground of administration and is repeated when the budget is brought down. This debate has been abolished in the House of Assembly of South Africa where the following standing order is now in force: "Mr. Speaker shall report to this House the Governor General's speech, and there shall be no debate on such report."
Your committee felt that the house could not abolish this debate, but it realized that the scope of discussion was so wide and the question of relevancy almost non-existent on this particular occasion that the freedom of speech of every member, party or group -would be fully preserved by limiting the number of amendments in the same way as on the motion for committee of supply. These two motions are in the same category, namely, they furnish occasions for airing grievances and making suggestions to the government.
And the amendment which ia suggested, Mr. Chairman, is as follows:
Only one amendment and one subamendment may be made to the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne and to the motion for the speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply or ways and means.
Must I understand, Mr. Chairman, that only one amendment will be permitted, or, on the other hand, will any member of the house be permitted, if his amendment is relevant to the main motion, to move as many subamend-

Rules oj the House
merits as he likes provided they are discussed one after the other? Otherwise, if just one subamendment is permitted I cannot see how the rights of the minorities in this chamber will be protected. I understand that any member of the house has the right to move a subamendment to an amendment provided he is within the scope of the main motion or the amendment.
I would like to have a clear explanation from the Chair or from Mr. Speaker concerning this proposed amendment to our standing orders.
Without prejudice to what I have said, Mr. Chairman, I shall now conclude those brief remarks, in expressing the hope that they be favourably considered by yourself and the members of the committee.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Hear, hear.


Maurice Lalonde: I would like to have an answer to my question if possible, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: As the hon. member for Labelle realizes, we called the first proposed amendment and allowed a general discussion. The question he has asked is pertinent to another proposed amendment which we shall reach later, and then his last question could be more readily answered.


Maurice Lalonde: I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be there to discuss it when we reach it.


Alan Webster Neill: If the amendment to standing order 9 passes, it automatically passes the whole of the preamble, which contains two definite recommendations which I wish to discuss. This committee did not agree to that. The chairman has just told the hon. member that that was the arrangement. That was not the arrangement, Mr. Chairman.


James Layton Ralston: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is no question with which the government officially has as little to do as on a question of this kind. It is a question absolutely for members of the house, and I would not intervene in any way except perhaps to th6 extent that I may have some responsibility for assisting in promoting regularity of debate and helping to expedite, if I may, the business of the house. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi is perfectly right. There was no agreement that the suggestion I made would be accepted. But is not the situation this? There is at this minute before the house an amendment to standing order 9 which has been regularly moved and which has been called by the Chair and which is now open for debate. Some objection was taken to
discussing standing order 9 before discussion of what was called the prologue or preliminary part of the report, and it was suggested then, in order that there might be the greatest latitude possible, that we should have some general discussion of the preliminary part and of some of the principles which were there laid down. Then I had the temerity to suggest that in order to regularize debate and to know when the general discussion- had ceased and when we were embarked on the job of dealing with the different amendments in order-in other words, to provide some terminal facilities for the general discussion'-we treat the general discussion as taking place on the amendment to standing order 9, and that when the amendment to standing order 9 was disposed of, either voted down or agreed to or amended, the general discussion would be over and we would go on with the other amendments.


Alan Webster Neill: That is just my objection. The general discussion would then be over, and the preliminary part of the report which comes under the general discussion contains two recommendations on which I wish to speak. If the amendment to standing order 9 passes, that other part goes through automatically. I protest against that, and I think I am within my rights when I say I want an opportunity to vote on the two recommendations contained in the earlier part of the report.


James Layton Ralston: My suggestion does not meet my hon. friend's desires if he wants an opportunity to vote as well as to discuss the two recommendations he mentions, but it does provide him with ample opportunity to discuss them, because I suggested that the general discussion, including the two recommendations my hon. friend mentions, take place on the item now before the Chair. I thought that was probably sufficient for members of the house. I have looked at these two recommendations and I think my hon. friend will agree with me that no changes in the standing orders are required to give effect to them. One is a recommendation with regard to regulation of the business of the house, and the other is more or less of a pious recommendation, if I may say so with all respect to the committee, that people of good will shall confer one witii the other with regard to the conduct of the business of the house. That is not something which you could embody in a standing order or in a regulation. So it seemed to me that all that was necessary in connection with either of these recommendations mentioned by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was that they be discussed and perhaps their futility, if that is the opinion of some members of the
Rules of the House

house, be exposed or their merits proclaimed, if that is the opinion of some other members; and then call it a day so far as those preliminary recommendations or suggestions are concerned.


Alan Webster Neill: But we cannot vote on them.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend wants an opportunity to take the opinion of the house upon them, the only way I can suggest, and I do not know whether it is in order or not, is that after we have disposed of the items somebody might bring in a motion either censuring the committee or commending the committee and provide an opportunity to vote on his motion. I mean that seriously; I am not sarcastic. It seems to me that that would be one way of dealing with it. I cannot imagine that it would be quite in order for a committee of the house solemnly to express the opinion that the government might do so and so in the way of arranging business of the house or that groups should confer about procedure. I would regard that merely as a suggestion which could be acted upon or otherwise as they thought fit.
May I suggest that perhaps some members have read this preamble or prologue too critically. All it does is to indicate that there have been criticisms of procedure in the house but that those criticisms are more or less based on a misconception, and it endeavours to point out those misconceptions. In any case, I suggest to my hon. friend that those criticisms really have not much to do with the recommendations to which he refers. If he himself feels that he should criticize the committee for making those remarks, well and good, but that does not get him very far in wanting to vote on those two particular recommendations.


Alan Webster Neill: I want to vote for one and against the other. How am I to do that?


James Layton Ralston: If the hon. member asks my advice, I would simply make the statement he has now made and give his reasons for it, and he has plenty of opportunity to do that in the debate. He can be sure of this, that in connection with the one he wants to vote against, the fact that there is no vote now will not prevent him from voting against it if it should ever come up, because this committee will not have passed on it favourably, will not have approved it. Therefore at any time that anyone wants to adopt the proposal which he says he is against, it will be open to him, he can be sure, to oppose it. With regard to the recommendation of which he is in favour, it is true that he does not get the opportunity of finding out whether the committee is with him on that particular point, but I would say here again that the

fact that he has not just now an opportunity to support it will not prevent him from voting for it whenever it should come up in some regular form. I assume that the one of which he is in favour is that with regard to supply.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know that I have to state my case, but that happens to be it. All I ask is the opportunity to vote on a definite recommendation made by a committee of this house. The minister can explain it away as he likes, but I am not going to be deprived of my rights, and there are others here who share my views.


James Layton Ralston: L am sure my hon. friend has misunderstood me entirely. I thought he was trying to explain what recommendations he favoured and what recommendations he was against. I withdraw my question entirely. I do not want him to disclose anything he does not want to disclose. The only reason I wanted to know which he was in favour of was to find out if he was in any way prejudiced because he was not able at this time to vote, because the committee would not be dealing with his particular question.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister is correct.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know what the question is. However, I submit to the committee, as a humble member of the house, like anyone else, that we have some pretty important amendments before us, which do afford opportunity for a full discussion of important questions of procedure, questions which involve not only the saving of time but the expediting of business generally. I suggest that, if that be the fact, there is a definite recommendation before the committee. There is full opportunity of discussing the report. Nobody has seen fit to bring forward the two recommendations to which Pay hon. friend refers, and neither of them I have pointed out, is germane to an amendment of the standing orders. I submit that we should proceed now as members of the house to the discussion of the first amendment, including a full discussion if it is desired, by everyone who is interested, on the two recommendations to which my hon. friend refers, although they are not embodied in the amendment of the standing orders. Then when we have discussed that, we can deal with the other amendments to the standing orders and go through with them. I tell my hon. friend that I will do the best I can to see if I can find any procedure under which he can get this committee or some committee of the house on record with regard to the two recommendations in which he is interested. I believe that when he comes to think the thing over he will content himself, as other hon. members have contented them-

Rules oj the House
selves, with expressing an opinion on a recommendation which is purely a suggestion and which is not before this committee, and leaving that opinion on record to be implemented by his vote whenever that recommendation comes up for actual discussion and decision by the house.


Alan Webster Neill: Pardon me; it is before the house.


James Layton Ralston: I do not think it is. It is not before the committee. The motion before the committee is the amendment of standing order 9.


Alan Webster Neill: We have never reached that.


James Layton Ralston: It has been called. My hon. friend will remember that there was a distinct agreement, I think on everybody's part, that the job to be done was to put these recommendations in order and number-that is, the recommendations which were recommendations with regard to standing orders.


Alan Webster Neill: It has not been done. They are not numbered.


James Layton Ralston: They are in order. It was agreed to put them in order so that they might be dealt with as resolutions.


Alan Webster Neill: Except the two.


James Layton Ralston: But the two are not amendments of standing orders.


Alan Webster Neill: No, I did not say they were.


James Layton Ralston: And they are not amendments of the procedure set out in this book of parliamentary rules.


Alan Webster Neill: I never said they were, but they are recommendations of the committee.


James Layton Ralston: But we are talking about amendements to standing orders. Now, that is what is before the committee, and that is the matter which has been called.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I rise to what I think is a point of order. The Minister of National -Defence referred to a formal motion now before the committee with respect to amending standing order 9. I should like to ask him, or you, Mr. Chairman, when such a formal motion was made. As I understand it, the only motions which have been made with respect to this matter were motions made when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair: one made on March 7 by the Prime Minister that we go into committee of the whole to give consideration to this report, and a similar motion made to-day while Mr. Speaker was still in the Chair. I believe one of the reasons we are having so much difficulty is that we are simply considering a report without any
specific, formal motion before us. The only actual motion which was made to-day in committee was the one made by the hon. member for Temiscouata and which was ruled out of order. It seems to me that it would expedite matters if someone, preferably a private member I would say, were to move formally the adoption or the approval of the proposed amendment of standing order 9, so that we might get on. I rose to a point of order really to ask the Minister of National Defence if he would indicate when the formal motion to which he referred was made.


James Layton Ralston: I do not know just what Hansard will show, but I distinctly heard, I think, the Chairman, after he took the Chair, use some such words as these, "The motion is that standing order 9 be amended" by doing so and so, and that is what I understood to be the item before the Chair. The Chairman can correct me if I am wrong.


Alan Webster Neill: Who made the motion?


James Layton Ralston: The motion, of course, would be called by the Chair and would be made by the Speaker. Let us check on that. The Chairman is here.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The statement of the minister is correct.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: May I ask the Minister of National Defence a question the answer to which might clarify this deadlock? If the discussion should proceed on standing order 9, after general discussion of other items or amendments, and when those amendments or any of them should be accepted, would the report be accepted altogether, or would the latter part be accepted separately?


James Layton Ralston: I understood that the agreement the other day was that we were to have the amendments to the standing orders put in order, in the form of separate amendments. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni objected to our talking about recommendations without identification, for instance "the recommendation in the middle of page so-and-so." He wanted them where they could be identified and separated; and as I understand it, we are dealing to-day with those amendments placed in that form. He has pointed out, quite properly, that they are not actually numbered, but they are in order, and can easily be identified as amendments of standing order so-and-so. My 'hon. friend has asked whether, if the amendment of standing order 9 is passed, that includes the passing of the so-called prologue or preamble. I take it that it does not, that it has nothing to do with the prologue or preamble, that the prologue or preamble has nothing to do with the
Rules of the House

amendment of standing orders as such; that, as each amendment is passed, the disposition of each one stands on its own feet. Consequently what emerges will be such amendments of standing orders in this book of parliamentary rules as are approved by this committee. There would therefore be no action by the committee approving these first two pages, which deals with certain general subjects and includes what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni calls "recommendations", but are really opinions and suggestions on two points of procedure in connection with handling the business of the house.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: May I ask if this procedure is not the accepting of the committee's report and if, in so doing, you certainly are not accepting or adopting the recommendations made by the committee? I rather agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni when he says that he does not want the preamble put in with standing order 9. If you look at page 2, regardless of what the Speaker has said in defining that word "recommendation", which he suggests should be changed to "suggestion"-I would point out that that has not been done yet-the report distinctly says "we therefore recommend". That is a recommendation. It goes on to say what the committee recommends. Taking the suggestion of the Minister of National Defence, that you include the preamble with the first amendment-


James Layton Ralston: No. I have not suggested that; I said you could talk about it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I believe- it would expedite matters greatly if we would so arrange it as to vote on the preamble first, because there are recommendations there. If the chairman of the committee, who is the Speaker, wishes to change the word "recommendations" to "suggestions", that might alter the opinion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and of others as well who object to it. But if you accept this language as it stands, in the final analysis you are accepting the recommendations as laid down in the preamble. They are recommendations; there is no doubt about it. They may not be intended to be regarded as recommendations, and I take it from what the Speaker said a few moments ago that that is not the intention, that they are offered only as suggestions to the committee. But that does not alter the fact that as stated in the preamble they are recommendations. I suggest that we could solve the difficulty by taking the preamble first and disposing of it.


Thomas Reid: I take it that the report of the committee differs in no way from other reports submitted to the House of Commons, and until this committee adopts the report that is before us, the report does not become effective. We have the report before us at the present moment and we are now deliberating the question of changing the standing orders and rules of the house. We may either adopt or reject the amendments, but in our discussions we shall not be deliberating upon what has been called the preamble to the report.


James Layton Ralston: I think I am correct in saying that the preamble is always the last portion of any measure that is passed, not the first. It simply means in this case that we do not reach the preamble but everyone will have expressed his opinion on it if he so desires. May I say this to the hon member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). The last recommendation to which he refers is that:
When there is reason to believe that debate will be protracted, parties and groups recognized in the house shall confer and make arrangements either for alloting days or laying any plan for saving time whilst protecting freedom of speech for every representative of the people who sits in this house.
I ask my hon. friend, suppose the word "recommendation" were changed, would it make the slightest difference? The house is passing a resolution about something it cannot enforce. It is dealing entirely with a suggestion to the leaders of the various groups in the house with reference to conference, and it is really not an effective recommendation at all. It is a suggestion to those who have to do with the proceedings of the house that they may by compromise and convention make certain arrangements. I agree with the member for Comox-Alberni that the other is a little more definite. The recommendation is:
We therefore recommend that, when the yearly estimates have been brought down, one day a week be set aside for consideration of supply. If this is done, the house is not likely to find itself under the necessity of passing a great part of estimates in the dying days of the session.
-that is really a suggestion to the government, or whoever may be responsible for determining the day-to-day business of the house. It is not a suggestion to the committee.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Does the word "recommend" there mean something different from what it does on page 4, where it says, "The following amendments to standing orders are recommended"?


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps the word there has the same meaning as in the context I have

Rules oj the House
quoted, but the point is that it is a recommendation to someone else. One recommendation is to the house, that we make certain amendments to the rules, and the other is to the government, that, in allocating days for business, they do certain things. My attention is called to the fact that in 1927 there was a similar committee sitting, and while the preamble of the report then submitted was very much more innocuous than this one, at the same time there were, however, one or two expressions indicating principles to which the committee had adhered and which might have been taken exception to by anyone who was then considering the report. I am instructed that the preamble to the report on that occasion simply treated as an introduction. It was not dealt with at all, and we find in volume 64 of the Journals of 1926-27 a tabulation setting out the amendments to the standing orders which were then dealt with, just as we have tabulated the amendments now proposed. The preamble itself, in the report of 1927, stated that the committee had agreed to certain amendments. I quote:
Your committe has adhered to the principle that the greatest freedom be allowed the house in both its debate and proceedings.
I am sure that someone could get up then and say that the committee had done no such thing.
Factors tending to restrict liberty have been eliminated.
That could have been made a controversial issue.
The tendency has been to reduce the number of standing orders and to make them clearer, with the object that only absolutely necessary rules be in force, so that the house will be more particularly guided by the general principles followed in British legislative assemblies and familiar to parliamentarians in Great Britain and the self-governing dominions.
That report was passed, not by dealing with the preamble but by dealing with the standing orders.


James Allison Glen: There is apparently a great
deal of confusion in the minds of some hon. members on the question whether in the forepart of the report the intention is that what is stated shall be binding on the house or on the government as the case may be. I believe, however, that every member of the committee is clearly of the opinion that no such intention was contemplated when the report was drafted and framed. The whole intention was that it was a suggestion only and not a recommendation, and personally I cannot see how any possible amendment can be made. The first part of the report, as well as the evidence of the words in themselves, is clear that that was
only intended as a recommendation, or a suggestion or direction, if you like, to government as to certain matters in connection with the estimates, and also, in the second part, in connection with the rules and as regards the protraction of debates. I think I am speaking definitely the minds of the members of the committee when I say that this was a matter which they discussed and which they thought should be dealt with, but that they did not intend to make any revision of the standing orders for the purpose of giving effect to it. Their whole intention was that they should consider only the amendments which they felt they should submit to the house, and that is what I submit we should now deal with.


Alan Webster Neill: May I make one last and no doubt futile effort to convince the government or the chairman as to the merits of this question. I do so in no spirit of antagonism to the government. Indeed, I wish to vote for one of these recommendations. I cannot understand however why the Speaker, the chairman of this committee, appears to be anxious to do the Charlie Chaplin act and disavow the paternity of his own baby. True, he may claim that it is not entirely his individual paternity, but he shares the responsibility with other members of the committee and now he appears like Charlie Chaplin to be hesitating and is anxious to repudiate paternity.
The report was brought into the house and, as the hon. member for Lincoln very truly says, it is obviously a report. The Speaker has made the suggestion that the word "recommend" in regard to the estimates is a general phrase; it is like the man who wrote a beautiful poem in regard to his regret over the mistakes of his lifetime, or perhaps even of the previous twenty-four hours, when he said something like this, "Flowers you might have sent, dear, are your haunting ghosts to-night." The Speaker seems to think this is a sort of academic thing which can be dismissed with his blessing in that way, but that is not the way in which it is brought into the house. This is what was said about it by the most astute constitutionalist in Canada, the Prime Minister, at page 1255 of Hansard for March 7:
We might well assume, I think, that so far as the first half of the report is concerned, if I may so designate it-
We seem to have a hard job defining it; one calls it a preamble, another calls it the first half; I think another called it an epilogue, and the next thing we know it will be a funeral oration.
-hon. members should not be committed too literally to all the statements which it sets forth, or to all its observations. They are
Rules of the House

general in nature, and in voting for or against the adoption of the report, if we are expected so to do, we might well, I think, be allowed to have certain mental reservations with regard to the adoption of all that appears there.
The Prime Minister wanted to have certain mental reservations, but some people object to that. They say, "We are going to vote on that on its merits, yes or no; we are not going to have a corner of our minds or hearts in which we believe something different from the way we vote." Now the Minister of Pensions and National Health comes along and says the best thing we can do is to forget about it. That would be. a very sad end to this report, which has been drawn up by some of the cleverest lawyers in the house; of the fourteen members of the committee I think nine were lawyers. Now we come down to the simple view. I am not opposing the report, but I want to discuss it. This matter can, I think, be settled in five minutes. The hon. gentleman who is leading the house tries to cover it up by saying that this does not really mean "recommendation" but that it means "suggestion", and I think one hon. member went so far as to say it was only a pious hope. It means just what it says; it is a recommendation. The word "recommend" on page 2 means exactly the same as it does on page 4, where we read:
The following amendments to the standing orders are recommended.
Get out of that if you can; say that in one place on page 2 it means nothing while in another place on page 4 it means everything. I cannot understand all this difficulty; all that is necessary is what I asked should be done the last time this matter was under discussion, that the recommendations should be put all together and numbered, so that we might vote on them one by one. To-day the leader of the government said he thought that had been done, but it has not, for two recommendations have been left out. The others have been grouped together so that we may understand them, but the first two recommendations have been omitted. Here we have eight or nine recommendations beginning on page 4, but the two recommendations contained on page 2 are not included. This can be settled very easily by putting at the top of the list of recommendations, or at the bottom -I do not care where they are-the two recommendations which are found on page 2. Is there anything wrong or anything difficult about that?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend does not really mean that seriously, does he, in regard to the suggestion as to members of the groups

conferring? Surely he does not mean he wants to have the committee record its opinion about that.


Alan Webster Neill: I meant that it did not matter to me whether those two recommendations were at the head of the list or at the end of it.


James Layton Ralston: But I am talking about the second recommendation. Does the hon. member really mean that he wants this recommendation put before this committee and solemnly passed upon?


Alan Webster Neill: If I could stop that recommendation from going through I would stay here for a week or a fortnight. I think it is a thoroughly rotten recommendation, and I want to discuss it and vote it down.


James Layton Ralston: Then why does the hon. gentleman bother with it?


Alan Webster Neill: I want it to be condemned-


James Layton Ralston: Supposing it should be passed; it would be ineffective.


Alan Webster Neill: -because only a short time ago the hon. gentleman himself made the suggestion that we should go on with the proposed amendment to standing order 9, and that when this amendment was adopted it would carry with it the first part of the report. I know he has now receded from that position, but I think Hansard will show that he took it a short time ago.


James Layton Ralston: I really must be a little firm about this. My hon. friend will not find in what I said previously one syllable which could be interpreted in that way, and I have not receded from anything. I took my position in the beginning and I repeat it now, that the discussion can take place when we are considering the amendment to standing order 9, but that all we would vote on would be the amendment, and we can go on from there with the other amendments.


Alan Webster Neill: I accept the minister's statement; my opinion was different, but perhaps I was wrong, and I know the minister is a reputable gentleman. But supposing we put that recommendation back alongside the other one; it is only a pious hope thrown up to the government, who can do what they like about it. I do not want any pious resolutions like this put up to anybody; I do not want it to be left so that only parties and groups who are "recognized" in the house may confer. My hon. friends in the far corner will not be recognized. That is a definite thing; and perhaps two or three years from now the' ministry

Rules of the House
of the day would be perfectly justified in. saying, "We are going to put this into effect, because it was one of the recommendations made in writing by this committee." There is no question about that. If the thing is right let us pass it; if it is wrong let us vote it down.


James Layton Ralston: I say it is just futile,


Alan Webster Neill: I say once we get through discussing these amendments of the standing orders the debate will end. If anyone will give me a guarantee that nothing will be done along this line I shall be satisfied. I am not alone in this. I ami not in collaboration with anyone else, but I am quite sure I am voicing the wishes of many other hon. members when I say that we want an opportunity to support or turn down these specific things. Why not just include these two recommendations at the bottom of the list, and let us have every opportunity to express ourselves? We do not want to adopt the second recommendation; perchance we may want to adopt the first one, in regard to the estimates.
I am taking up a good deal of the time of the committee and I apologize, but I have not spoken very much this session; I ami not able to do so. I do not see why we could not be allowed to follow that course. Someone suggested that we might strike out the word "recommend" and insert the word "suggest". That might meet the difficulty in a way, but in a house of two hundred and forty-five intelligent people it is no use saying that "recommend" means one thing on one page and something different on another page. Now I have said all I am going to say; this discussion will have to go on, but time and history will show that I am right.


Mr. GOLDING:: As a member of the special committee I want to endorse what the Speaker has said. The committee did express certain opinions in the preamble, but they did not ask the house to make those opinions into rules. The only things we wanted to change were the standing orders.


Alan Webster Neill: You did not say so.


William Henry Golding: I hope my hon. friend will let me have a moment in which to say a few words. I am trying to express my opinion, speaking with my knowledge as a member of that committee. While these opinions were expressed, it was not intended that they should become standing orders. If we expressed the opinion that in order to facilitate the business of this house it would be a splendid thing for the different groups to get together, that does not mean that it should be made a rule or anything of the kind; that is only an expression of opinion. I think the matter was put
very clearly by the Speaker and by the hon. member for New Westminster. We did give a good deal of attention to the recommendations we made, and hon. members are at liberty to adopt or reject them, as the case may be. Perhaps we were not unanimous in regard to everything, but we were fairly unanimous on the recommendations we have made in regard to amendments of standing orders. As to the opinions expressed in the preamble, however, we did not ask that they be translated into rules of the house, and I think hon. members generally understand that. Surely that point has been explained now; it was dealt with by the acting leader of the government as well.


Angus MacInnis: I think we should try to find some way to break this deadlock and get on with our business. I hesitate to disagree with the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, for whose parliamentary acumen and experience I have the greatest regard. But I do insist that he is wrong in his attitude toward this report. As a matter of fact the report is clear, as is also the intention of the committee. It made certain recommendations respecting the standing orders of the house. Those recommendations are definitely stated. Then the committee suggested that other things might be done, but it did not include those as changes or amendments of standing orders. The committee had the same power in regard to those matters as it had in regard to the standing orders for which it seeks amendments.
It would seem that the first recommendation on page 2 has caused much of the discussion. Before that suggestion was made the committee said this:
Your committee does not think it would be advisable to change the present system-
That is, the present standing order.
-and it believes that the elasticity of the present rules makes it possible to apply them in new situations from time to time.
This makes it quite clear that the committee did not wish to change the standing order in regard to estimates. Had it wished to do so it would have offered the amendment among the other recommendations found on the following pages. The committee felt, however, that the government in dealing with the business of the house might make certain changes which would facilitate that business and give better satisfaction to hon. members.
The committee has said:
We, however, desire to submit that considerable time could be saved if the committee of supply sat oftener in the early part of the session.
That deals with the point I have mentioned.
Rules of the House

We now come to the suggestion in the next paragraph, found in these words:
We have recommended a few amendments but we feel that this house cannot go further in regulating its discussions.
Feeling that way, we are not offering any amendments in that regard.
Then the introduction goes on to say:
In spite of limitations now existing, every resolution and bill is given ample opportunities for debate in committee of the whole, standing and select committees and on the second and third reading; but as the allotment of days, under a special rule, might prevent members from speaking, it should not be ordered under the authority of a standing order.
Consequently the committee is not making that recommendation. But it is suggesting that the government consider facilitating business by holding consultations with leaders of other groups in the house. That is all the committee has done in that connection.
I suggest that we deal with the amendments of the standing order. If any other member wishes to have a standing order in respect of those two suggestions, I believe the rules of the house would allow that the amendments be made. I do believe, however, that it is this sort of futile discussion which brings parliamentary institutions into disrepute.


Mr. McIVOR:: I believe if this committee were to meet again it would have another amendment to offer, in view of our having spent two hours on the discussion thus far. However, as I see it, the purpose of the committtee was to bring about a condition whereby the business of the house might be carried on more efficiently.
I have two suggestions to make. Some years ago I presented a petition to a former minister of public works in which we pointed out that some way should be found whereby hon. members occupying seats in far comers of the house would not have to leave their seats and move to other places in the house in order to hear. It is difficult to hear in this chamber. We note that four seats are reserved for the debates reporters. Why would those four seats be set aside in the centre of the chamber, if it were possible to hear with ease?
Why do we come to parliament? Do we not come to listen to and to take part in debates? Unless one has a strong voice, it is impossible for another member in a far corner to hear what is being said. I believe the Minister of Public Works and his staff should find some way to facilitate the hearing of speeches. People in the gallery would like to hear, too-especially those in the press gallery.


Jean-François Pouliot: And especially when you speak.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: This afternoon the leader of the opposition could not be heard by members of the C.C.F. When the matter was called to his attention he had to turn his face away from the Chair, with the result that the Chair could not hear him. Surely this matter should be considered.
I made a suggestion a while ago that the doors should be opened before Mr. Speaker proceeds to open the day's sitting. I believe this would be a good thing, and for this reason: All those who, through courtesy, come to hear the proceedings of the house would see how the sitting is opened. They would see, too, that the House of Commons stands upon a solid foundation. When Mr. Speaker, in a petition from the prayer says, "May Thy Kingdom come", it is clear that members in all parts of the house, through Mr. Speaker, are really pledging themselves to work for the kingdom of heaven to come on earth. Surely the general public should know this. If it is good for a few members of the house to come here and silently worship the Almighty, then I say it would be good for the general public. And it is in keeping with the statement of Him who gave us that prayer, when He said, "Whosoever will may come."
Some have urged that freedom of speech has been curtailed. I fail to understand that position, because I have been able to find lots of opportunity for anything I have had to say. Since I have come to the house I have found no minister, no whip, or anybody else who has attempted to curtail my remarks. I am going to think for myself and vote as I like.
Further, in respect of standing order 9 it is my view that no member should sit in the house and refuse to vote. Why is the member here? Surely he or she should be prepared to take sides, if they have any convictions whatever. Certainly I support that amendment.


Mr. NOSEWORTHY:: I shall take only a very few minutes to make my contribution to the confusion which apparently already exists.


Mr. STIRLING:: And add a little more.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It is clear that this general discussion is precipitated because of the introductory material in the report. Most hon. members feel that by adopting the report they will at the same time approve the suggestions or recommendations made by the committee in that introductory material. I would ask Mr. Chairman to indicate, if he will, just how or when we shall register our approval or disapproval of the introductory part of the report? Shall we by adopting the first amendment at the same time approve the recommendations or suggestions or, when we

Rules oj the House
have finished with the specific recommendation, shall we then be asked to adopt the report as amended? Is there any place in the procedure where we shall be asked to approve the introductory material in this report? Personally I should like to see that opportunity offered. There are a number of suggestions in the introductory part of the report that in my opinion, if followed by the government, will improve the procedure in the house. Would the Chairman indicate if there will be an opportunity of approving by vote the introductory part of this report?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The committee is asked to approve the report of the committee for the amendment of the rules of the house. At the present moment we are dealing with the proposed changes and amendments to the rules and proceedings of the House of Commons. That will be the final report as far as the committee of the whole is concerned.


Gordon Graydon: I have waited now for nearly two hours for the point to be decided as to what the procedure shall be. I have listened intently to the proceedings so far. If we as a committee are not able to determine the procedure by which we shall attempt to improve the procedure of the house then I say we are in a very bad way indeed. I think the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East might properly be emphasized at this time. The public fail to understand proceedings of the kind that have taken place this afternoon in this chamber; such proceedings tend to throw a shadow of disrepute in the minds of some people on the proceedings of this house, and parliament to some extent becomes a bit of a laughing stock to the people who do not understand the general situation as it exists.
As I understand it, we are dealing with a report of a committee. If we depart from that and get into a discussion on a number of items in connection with the report, then I think we are departing from what we should be doing. I suggest that regardless of the discussion this afternoon, we should decide finally to deal with the report as such. Let us go on with the general discussion as I suggested in the first instance. Let us deal with the first part of the report, thereby having an opportunity to deal with the two recommendations which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggested. Let us get that out of the way. Surely that is a short-cut to all of this. Let us decide one way or the other about it and then let us go on to the particular items. I find that the introduction is included in the conclusion of the report as well. That shows the extent to which we have gone in completely confusing the whole issue before the
committee. I have some things I should like to say in a general way about the matter of house procedure, but I have been unable to do so because the procedure has not yet been determined.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Perhaps I did not make myself very clear. I have tried to trace a line of conduct in the present discussion. We all realize that this is not a bill. It is something like the war appropriation bill where wide latitude is given. I think I have gathered the consensus of the members of this committee. At the beginning wide latitude was given to the discussion. I have ruled that there is no preamble. We are dealing with a matter that touches on the freedom of parliament and parliamentarians. I thought I should allow the discussion to be fairly general. I agree with the leader of the opposition. I hope we shall now come to the first amendment that is before the committee. Going back to the introduction, there is a schedule to the report. As far as a preamble is concerned, we may call it that or anything else, but I have nothing of that kind before me. Standing order 76 reads as follows:
In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
This is not a bill. I must leave it in the hands of the members of the committee of the whole. I thought I should give a lead in the general discussion and then go on to the passing of the proposed amendments.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: It seems surprising that the members of the house now in committee of the whole should be so much exercised about the introductory remarks that the committee submitted in its report on the amendment to the standing orders and rules. The introduction is headed as a commentary on parliamentary procedure, reviewing in general parliamentary procedure as we have it here in this house and making some suggestions and perhaps unfortunately using the words: "We recommend". The committee did not go so far as to offer any specific amendment of any standing order to carry out a recommendation. It will He entirely with the house and with the government as to whether they go farther than to adopt or not to adopt the specific amendments of certain standing orders which the committee recommend. There are 121 standing orders governing the house. After a number of meetings of the committee it was decided to offer amendments to only ten of the standing orders. These are the amendments that were offered.
Rules of the House

They appear in the report, ten in all. I submit that if these amendments are considered and adopted or defeated, then there is no necessity of adopting the preamble to the report or the introduction to the report. It stands merely as a general representation to the house. It does not profess to bind the house at all. There is no motion before the committee that the report be adopted. As I understand it, the motion now before the committee is that the suggested amendments to standing order 9 be adopted. That is what we are considering. That is what we should do or refuse to do. Having done that, we should then go on to the next one, which is No. 11. The committee may never be called upon to adopt the introduction. There is no reason why they should. It stands merely as a record of the opinion of this committee and the committee does not ask the committee of the whole to deal with it at all. It asks the committee of the whole to deal merely with the specific amendments that have been suggested.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thoroughly agree with every word said by the hon. member for Yukon. His statements will be confirmed if we look at the terms of reference to this committee which may be found in Votes and Proceedings of this house of Tuesday, February 1, 1944. The reference is as follows:
Mr. Mackenzie King, seconded by Mr. Ilsley, moved,-That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Black (Yukon), Fauteaux, Golding, Hanson (York-Sunbury), Isnor, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), Maclnnis, Mcllraith, Maybamk, St. Laurent and Quelch, be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house with a view to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business, and to report to the house during the present session.
Therefore the contention of the hon. member for Yukon is absolutely correct. We are concerned only with the terms of the reference which calls for an inquiry into a revision of the standing orders, and that the said committee report to the house during the present session. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the committee, that we should now proceed to discuss these revisions in detail.


Jean-François Pouliot: The first thing to do is to know what is before us. There has been some conflict of opinion regarding what is called in different ways the expression of the opinion of the members of the committee. I have the Votes and Proceedings of February 1 containing the order of reference which states that that committee should be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house with a view to simplify,
("Mr. George Black.]
accelerate and expedite the business and to report to the house in the present session. The reason why there was the misunderstanding is not due to what has been said by the hon. members here. It is precisely because the report has to be put in the hands of Mr. Chairman. That is the first mistake. A report that comes from a special committee cannot be amended except by the committee of the whole house itself. That is the way it is done; it cannot be done otherwise, and even if some sheets of paper are not before you, Mr. Chairman, it does not mean that the full report of the special committee is not before you. That is as clear as crystal.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have rendered my decision. There is a way of appealing from my decision. I rule this discussion out of order, because there is no preamble before the Chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, but if there is no preamble there is an introduction which I have in my hand. But leaving that aside, if the first three pages are the basis for the proposed amendments, we must know what they contain, and they contain a series of contradictions and of errors in constitutional law. They contain some errors that a first-year student in constitutional law would detect. Let us see what is the basis of these proposed amendments. The report says:
Your committee, in the performance of the important duty assigned to it by the house, has taken into account the existence of general criticism of parliament both by members and representative citizens.
That I deny. The second sentence reads:
It has fully realized that much is expected of the House of Commons where the views of the people are finding expression and where industrial and economic conditions are demanding parliamentary attention and solution.
That is insignificant. It goes on:
The main question before the committee was whether procedure should be amended so that the house may be able to do more legislative work in the time at its disposal and increase its efficiency as a critical and controlling assembly.	.
The work that we do here does not depend upon the rules of the house but upon the legislation that is submitted to us by the government. If, for instance, the selective service " legislation had been submitted to parliament instead of being passed by order in council it would have been much better and it would have shown a p-roper deference to parliament, much more than the amendments to the rules now proposed. Again the report says:
Criticisms of parliament seem to have been inadequately considered in relation to the whole structure of parliament-

Rules of the House
Imagine, criticism in regard to the whole structure of parliament!
-the necessary party system and the complex situation created by a war which is now in its fifth year.
Everybody knows that. It goes on:
These criticisms arise from opinions concerning the functions of parliament which are often based upon such misconceptions as the view that parliament is primarily a board of directors with the members of the cabinet as its executive staff, and that members, instead of endeavouring to reconcile as much as possible all the elements of public opinion, which is difficult in our diversified country, should rigidly consider every question on its own exclusive merits.
That is insignificant.
Suc-h, however, is not the true function of a legislative body composed of 245 members elected to discuss the management of public affairs.
Here is what I find wrong in this introduction. I find voices of good and voices of evil. There are some statements in these three pages that are absolutely true and some that are absolutely wrong, and when something is partly good and partly bad, I consider it all bad and I want to get rid of it. That is my point of view. It goes on:
Debates may sometimes be lengthy but they bring home to the administration the advisability or unpopularity of a particular line of policy and they must -be heard because democratic government rests upon public opinion.
That is true.
Parliament is the assembly of representatives elected by the people where great issues are debated, or should be debated;-
That again is true.

it is not primarily a body of auditors charged with the inspection of departmental accounts.
That is false. It is one of the principles of the British North America Act that parliament should have a check on expenditures. It is our duty to look into the expenditures of this country and to have its accounts before us. We are not auditors, but we have that right, which was won after a constitutional fight by our forefathers. Therefore I say that that statement is absolutely false.
Freedom of speech is one of the inalienable privileges of members of the House of Commons.
True.
It is in truth the privilege of their constituents and it is secured to members not for their personal benefit but to enable them to discharge the functions of their office.
The second part of that is true, but the first part of the sentence is partly true and partly false. It says:
It is in truth the privilege of their constituents. . . .
It is not the constituents who sit here. We sit here as the representatives of our constituents, and we have the right to discuss all matters pertaining to their welfare. It goes on:
Without it, the essence of the country's liberty * does not exist.
That is true.
The present procedure was devised to reflect the freedom of all the members of the house, but we must realize that in war time parliament is bound to divest itself of some of its prerogatives in order to strengthen the government's power.
That is wrong, and it is in contradiction with the first part which says that the rules are amended to increase the efficiency of parliament. How can anyone reconcile those two statements? On the one hand it says it is to strengthen the power of parliament, and on the other hand it is to give our legal powers to the government. Most absurd, most wrong -total ignorance of parliamentary rights and of the constitution. It goes on:
The principle of majority rule is a constitutional convention upon which all British parliamentary government is built-
True.
-but this must collapse in proportion as the principle of the protection of minorities begins to decay.
What is the meaning of that sentence? It is so foggy, so impossible to understand, that it should be explained. It is most foolish. It goes on:
Rules are not sufficient to preserve freedom of speech and to uphold the dignity of the House of Commons.
I admit it, and for this reason, that practice counts for more than rules.
Standing orders depend for their success upon the prevalence of good will amongst all members who have to work under them.
A member-he was an old member too- once asked me what the standing orders were. I told him they were the rules of the house. He said, "Thank you." He did not even know what they were. The first thing is to read the standing orders and try to understand them. They are not so bad, after all, although they were mutilated a little over fifteen years ago.
Standing orders depend for their success upon the prevalence of good will amongst all members who have to work under them.
That is true, but they depend for their success upon the rulings of the chair, and some of the rulings that were given some years ago were most unjust. I shall not recall them now because they are in the minds of all members. The chairman must know the rules and apply them according to their spirit. That
Rules oj the House

was not done for some time when another speaker was in the chair and when another chairman was occupying the chair here.
The house must rely on the forbearance of its members and on the general acquiescence in the enforcement by the Speaker of the rule which requires that members should strictly confine, themselves to matters immediately pertinent to the subject of debate.
That is true but the rule is there already. What is the use of repeating the same thing? It is useless redundance. It goes on:
In a report presented to the United Kingdom House of Commons in 1931, the following statement appears:	"Your committee would
urge that unless understanding and a common loyalty prevail there will be a danger of the collapse of the system of representative government ... if the principles of equality among members, publicity of the house's proceedings..."
Publicity of the house's proceedings! How is it that members of the wartime information board go around to the press with scissors, telling them not to publish this and that which hon. members have said? I am not making complaint of the two agencies, the Canadian Press and the British United Press, but there are those who do not want these reports to be published, and who do mutilate them, and it is these very gentlemen who complain afterwards that members are not doing their duty. Let them inform first their readers of what we are doing. Afterwards they will be in a position to criticize what we have done, and their readers will be sufficiently informed to give a fair judgment.
. . freedom of speech, majority rule, or the right of the minority to an adequate expression of opinion are consciously challenged, there is an indication of some serious defect in the life of the nation. . ."
That is true, sir. If there is no freedom of speech in the house, there is an indication of some serious defect in the life of the nation. It was said in England, but it is just as true here as it is true in England:
"These larger considerations cannot .be regulated by rules and orders:	they are the
responsibility of each member of the house."
They are the responsibility of the Chair, and they are our responsibility, as a body of men who have to maintain our traditional liberties. The report continues:
Your committee, in all its deliberations, has kept m mind the importance of not impairing the rights of minorities.
That is right. I agree with that.
Two fundamental principles govern the procedure of the house. They are, that the government shall, so long as it can maintain a majority, be able to secure such legal powers as it considers necessary for administration, . . .
That is absolutely wrong. Where does the government have legal powers? Anyone can
fMr. Pouliot.]
look in the constitution and ascertain that the government has no legal powers; it has only executive powers. It is against this kind of thing in the report that I protest. Why should we abandon our rights to the government? We have rights here. We have the right to check legislation, and to do so at each one of the readings of a bill. Why should we abandon our rights as a parliament? This is the kind of thing in this report which I find absolutely wrong and despicable.
The report goes on to say that it is a fundamental principle-
. . . that minorities, however small, shall be able to criticize that administration.
That is all right, but let us see how it works. In the first place is asserted something which is absolutely false, which is absolutely opposed to the constitution, and in the second place it is commended as giving a chance to the minority. "I give you poison, but it is for your good; it will make you strong. I will kill you, but it is to send you to heaven."
Standing orders must protect them, and it is all the more important that they be founded on right and justice because they are merely resolutions of the house whicfi can be swept away by a majority vote.
"Founded on right and justice"! I do not suppose anybody thinks we can change the constitution.
Your committee is of the firm opinion that these rights cannot be alienated even if the house, in maintaining them, may protract sessions and lay itself open to severe criticism.
In saying that, the committee does well.
The suggestion that estimates should be referred to standing or select committees has been given earnest consideration and carefully reviewed. It strikes at the root of ministerial responsibility and it divests members of the privilege of criticizing from the floor of the house without advice, suggestion or influence of any kind, all departmental expenditures submitted by the government. No proposals subversive of this settled rule of action can be safely embodied in any scheme for securing closer parliamentary control. One of the objections to this proposal is that if all the estimates are referred to a standing or select committee the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair shall be abolished, which means fewer opportunities for private members to move amendments setting forth grievances or expressing want of confidence in the government.
Reading that, one would suppose that everything is done to give hon. members more liberty, more freedom of speech than we have now; yet there come the scissors, "cut the speech, cut the speech, cut the speech," all the time. I think it is hypocrisy to say one thing and do another. Anyone reading the preamble would gain the impression that the object is to give hon. members the fullest and most perfect freedom of speech; yet we

Rules oj the House
know that members cannot speak here, they cannot speak there; more members must rise in the case of an appeal; but all this is said to be for their own good and for the strengthening of parliamentary institutions, to allow members to say anything they like, and to protect minorities. That is the way it is done. If to sustain charges, more members must rise, it is for the protection of minorities! The number required to appeal from Mr. Speaker's rulings must be twenty instead of five, but it is to protect minorities! And so forth and so on.
One of t.he objections to this proposal is that if all the estimates are referred to a standing or select committee the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair shall be abolished, which means fewer opportunities for private members to move amendments setting forth grievances or expressing want of confidence in the government. The procedure required to keep _ this privilege unimpaired would reduce the efficiency of the committee's functions and it would be so involved as to be misunderstood and hard to enforce. Certain estimates may be^ occasionally referred to a select committee in order to ascertain facts which the house desires to know, but this practice should be adopted guardedly and only in very special circumstances. Your committee does not think it would be advisable to change the present system and it believes that the elasticity of the present rules makes it possible to apply them in new situations from time to time.
Here we have it.
We, however, desire to submit that considerable time could be saved if the committee of supply sat oftener in the early part of the session.
We do not need rules for that. Everything is in the hands of the government. When they want to submit estimates it is up to them to do so. We do not need rules for that, although such a rule would not be any more absurd than standing order 12, paragraph 4:
No member may pass between the chair and the table, nor between the chair and the mace when the mace has been taken off the table by the sergeant-at-arms.
"The chair" is the chair in which Mr. Chairman sits. How can anyone pass between Mr. Chairman's chair and the mace? And there are other things which are unbelievable. Standing order 5 states:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the house, unless leave of absence has been given him by the house.
What hon. member indicates with his fingers that he wishes to obtain the leave of the house to dictate his correspondence or attend a committee? That is a rule of the house which is not observed. What is the good of having rules which will never be observed? They should be stricken off the record; they are obsolete.
To return to the committee's report:
We therefore recommend that, when the yearly estimates have been brought down, one day a week be set aside for consideration of supply. If this is done, the house is not likely to find itself under the necessity of passing a great part of the estimtaes in the dying days of the session.
This is the recommendation which I am precluded from discussing on its merits because it is not supposed to be before Mr. Chairman now, as he told me that he had ruled.
The allotment of a certain number of days for the debates which appear to become protracted was considered Your committee was averse to multiplying rules of this character. There are already several restrictions which have been found necessary for parliamentary work and which are accepted in almost every elected assembly.
Not in England. Are they accepted everywhere except in England? Not everywhere; in only a few dominions.


James Layton Ralston: I have been out of the chamber for a few minutes. May I inquire if anything happened since I was out whereby the Chairman made a ruling that the suggestions or recommendation contained in what we have called the preamble of the committee's report might not be discussed? I thought the Chairman had indicated that it could be discussed under the amendment of standing order 9.


Jean-François Pouliot: He said both.


James Layton Ralston: I would take the ruling in which he said "yes."


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The ruling I had given was that we have no preamble before the committee at the present time. I assumed it would be very hard to stop hon. members from what might be called a general discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the leader of the house that I am reading it so that it may be on record, so that those who see Hansard to-morrow will know what we have been discussing and that we have been fighting for the cause of liberty, for freedom of speech. That is what I want. If the hon. gentleman will permit me, I was saying that there is something of a paradox in these pages. The suggestion is being made that the House of Commons should divest itself of its legal powers in favour of the government and against the constitution itself, and I deny that we have the right to do that. That is the suggestion that is twice repeated in these incredible pages. I continue:
We have recommended a few amendments but we feel that this house cannot go further in regulating its discussions. In spite of limitations now existing, every resolution and bill is
Rules of the House

given ample opportunities for debate in committee of the whole, standing and select committees and on the second and third readings; but as the allotment of days, under a special rule, might prevent members from speaking, it should not be ordered under the authority of a standing order.
It is just to give an opportunity to members to speak; it is not to prevent them from being able to speak that their speeches are curtailed. Most incredible!
Your committee is not prepared to recommend such an innovation in our procedure which must be adapted to our own conditions and be thoroughly Canadian.
Here it is, "Canadian". If it were truly Canadian it would be better.
Our recommendation is that, when there is reason to believe that debate will be protracted, parties and groups recognized in the house shall confer and make arrangements cither for allotting days or laying any plan for saving time whilst protecting freedom of speech for every representative of the people who sits in this house.
Once again the voices of good and evil. These gentlemen will meet together in the most undemocratic fashion and decide that private members have not the right to speak.


William Henry Golding: They do it.


Jean-François Pouliot: They may do it but it is a shame that it is done.


William Henry Golding: They do it now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know they do, but I have always protested against it. I do not see why any member who is the leader of a group should have any more rights than a private member who is a back-bencher. That is my point. In the house we are all equals. The Prime Minister said so in 1926. He said he was the first among equals, and he said something to that effect not long ago. It is not disrespect for any one to point this out. If anyone sits here he does so in his capacity as a member of the House of Commons. If someone is elected grand commander of the illustrious and noble order of such-and-such, that does not give him any right to sit in the House of Commons. He sits here because he is a member of parliament, and all members of parliament have the same rights. I do not see, therefore, how any men belonging to any party or group may join together to prevent any member from saying what he has a right to say. It is most undemocratic, most despotic, most dictatorial.
Your committee _ did not think it advisable to take up at this time the question of the alleged suppression of initiative on the part of the private member.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
Here again is the voice of good.
As the nation has been at war for over four years-
It was supposed to be five years, here it is only four years. The more we read, the less we are at war.
-and government business has been given precedence over private members' motions and bills, this is not the proper session to consider that part of our procedure.
I do not insist.
Conditions prevailing in war time are such that private members notices of motions and private bills must give way to war measures.
I am willing to agree to that.
The order of business followed since 1940 has been based on resolutions which practically abolish private members' days. It is an exceptional situation and perhaps the house had better wait until normal conditions return before the private member's place in the house can be considered.
I believe that the private member's place in the house must be considered in all discussions of public affairs, and if for the duration of the war we give precedence to government business I do not see why the rights of private members should be curtailed in debate.
Rules of practice are necessary in the House of Commons as well as in any court of justice and other public institutions, but the multiplicity of standing orders dealing with the basic principles of parliamentary procedure ought not to be encouraged.
That is why I am against having new rules. I find this statement very timely. We should not have more rules. I am against new rules. Here we have something good and something bad, something bad and something good-it is like an orange. Take an orange, part of which is rotten.; will you eat it? No; you will throw it away. The orange that I hold in my hand has something good in it, but most of it is bad, and that is why I want to throw it into the waste-paper basket, as I did the famous Purvis report on unemployment. To continue:
There were no standing orders relating to public business in the United Kingdom House of Commons until 1707, and there were only three from 1715 to 1821-over a century. There are ninety-five to-day. We have 81, besides 10 dealing with the staff and 28 governing the library of parliament. Your committee is aware that members of this house are reluctant to impose restrictions on their freedom and independence, and that any attempt to translate procedure into precise rules will deprive them of the very quality which render them adaptable to new and varying conditions, or unusual combinations of circumstances, and might have the effect of restricting rather than safeguarding their privileges.
Amen. Then, there is another paragraph. It was said that members had been asked to express views about the matter. That is the

Rules of the House
part I object to because it leaves those who read it under a false impression, that the purpose of these regulations is to give more latitude to the members when,, in fact, as I understand it, it deprives them of all rights they have now. The leader of the opposition has to defend his own move, because he himself suggested changing the rules. He did not know what he was speaking about when he mentioned a certain matter to the house, and I told him that the first thing to do in connection with the public accounts committee was to lay a charge and ask for a sitting of the committee on a specified charge. And then he went on with it. It has become a Bracken slogan, that we must reform the rules of the house. Was it not his intention to depreciate members to your right, Mr. Chairman, so that they could be easily defeated at the next election? To me, it was a political move. That was the intention, to depreciate the majority of the house in order to have an easy success at the next election. And then we went on. Who had a diary to get in touch with editors at various intervals? It is time enough to write another article to remind the Prime Minister and the cabinet that the rules of the house should be changed. We had certain views periodically expressed by the man with a diary. He must have had connections in Montreal and Ottawa, in Toronto and in Winnipeg, and perhaps in the press gallery. When will he write another editorial about the. change in the rules of the house.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Mr. Chairman, throughout the afternoon session we were dealing with the proposed amendments to the standing orders, but to my mind we made very little progress. I agree with the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Yukon, a former Speaker of this house, and supported by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I view the first three pages of this report as explanatory notes outlining the opinions of the committee upon certain aspects of the rules governing the procedure of this house, and even if the whole report should be adopted I cannot see that what is contained in these three pages would in any way amend any of the standing orders.
Throughout the discussion it has appeared to me that the emphasis has been placed upon the necessity of protecting the rights 100-148
and privileges of private members of parliament. I would be the last to support any suggestion which I thought might violate the rights or the independence of hon. members, but I do think that in this chamber we should not overlook the fact that if we are to maintain that high prestige which should be maintained with respect to free, democratic parliaments, we must keep in mind the necessity of so regulating the business of parliament as to expedite the important and essential matters which come up for consideration. In this discussion I think too little emphasis has been placed upon that important feature. I am not unmindful of the fact that in many countries democratic parliaments have disappeared as a means of government; nor am I unmindful of the fact that what has been substituted for those democratic institutions has eliminated to a very large extent not only the independence of elected representatives of the people but also the rights of individual citizens. Something has been said with respect to free speech. I believe the parliament at Westminster is the citadel of freedom of speech; and that brings me to a thought which is expressed at the bottom of page 2 of this report, in these words:
Our recommendation is that, when there is reason to believe that debate will be protracted, parties and groups recognized in the house shall confer and make arrangements either for allotting days or laying any plan for saving time whilst protecting freedom of speech for every representative of the people who sits in this house.
As far as I am concerned, as I said in a debate last year, the parliament at Westminster adopted the principle of the allocation of time as applied to the consideration of bills, estimates and other business of the house. I have not altered my opinion; I am still in favour of the adoption by this house of the principle of the allocation of time, but after fully considering the matter the committee decided that this was not an opor-tune time to recommend to the house the amendment of our standing orders to bring that regulation into effect. I am quite prepared to go on and discuss these other amendments and not press that matter at the moment, but I want to make one point clear. I am quite sure that the adoption of the principle of the allocation of time by the parliament at Westminster has neither violated nor destroyed freedom of speech in that citadel, where the importance of freedom of speech is considered as great as in any other part of the globe. In view of the fact that they adopted that principle as far back as the early eighteen-eighties, I am sure we might well give consideration to following their example. In the meantime, I do not

Rules of the House

see why we could not dispense with this endless discussion on the foreword, and get down to the discussion of the amendments to the standing orders as they are listed in this report beginning with standing order 9 on page 4.


Mr. RAYMOND:: I wish to register my protest against the proposed amendment to standing order 9, which reads:
And every member present in the chamber when the question is finally put iby Mr. Speaker shall be obliged to vote, and if he does not vote Mr. Speaker shall call upon him to_ vote and his name shall be recorded accordingly. If he persists in not voting he may be named by Mr. Speaker for having violated a standing order of the house.
What is the purpose of this amendment? When the Prime Minister moved the resolution setting up the committee he expressed himself in these words:
That a special committee ... be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house with a view to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business, and to report to the house during the present session.
Can anyone tell me how this amendment will help to simplify, accelerate and expedite the business of the house? This was the purpose of the appointment of the committee. The first amendment is to oblige a man sitting in the house to register his vote. I do not see any reason to support any such amendment. In the Votes and Proceedings of March 3, there were some explanatory notes as to the amendments. It is said that the practice for many years was that a member who remained seated during a division was often required by Mr. Speaker to declare on which side he voted. I have sat in the house since 1925, and my recollection is clear with respect to 1931, in which year on the occasion of a vote a few members remained seated in the house, and did not register their votes. In that year Mr. Speaker did not render a decision; as a matter of fact he refused to intervene.
Then on April 28, 1931, Mr. Bourassa moved a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that the standing orders of the house be amended by inserting the direction that upon a division a member is not obliged to vote. As a matter of fact, later on a committee was appointed, on the initiative of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett. A special committee was set up to consider amendments to the standing orders of the house governing procedure to be followed in taking a division. I do not know that any report was made. But that was the only occasion I recall when members were challenged to register their votes.

In the explanatory notes to which I referred a moment ago it is pointed out that in 1906, in the United Kingdom house, a standing order was passed relieving members of the obligation to vote. Certainly the practice in the United Kingdom cannot be held out as an argument in favour of this amendment, because over there members are not obliged to vote, or register their votes. I am trying to find a single reason which might lead me to support the amendment. In the preamble -some call it a preamble, while others say it is not a preamble-there is reference to freedom of members. Well, when a member is entitled to sit in the house he is entitled to his seat all the time deliberations of the house are in progress. He is entitled either to listen or not to listen to the debates. Some members may read their newspapers-as they are now doing. No one objects to their doing so. They can participate in the debate, or refrain from doing so, and no one will object. They are at liberty to do as they wish in that regard. When a division is taken, should a member be obliged to register his vote for or against a motion?
There are many inconveniences connected with a rule of that kind. For instance, with respect to the speech from the throne at the present session we know there was a main motion, an amendment and a subamendment. Members were called upon to register their votes on that division. If an hon. member did not want to vote on the subamendment, he could not have stayed in the house. He would have had to leave. What would have happened? Mr. Speaker read the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment, and then said that we would vote on the subamendment. As soon as the vote was taken on the subamendment, the amendment was voted on, without reading the amendment again or, in fact without reading anything, and without ringing the house bells. If a member did not want to vote on the subamendment, but wanted to vote on the amendment, he could not have registered his vote. He would have been outside the house, and would not have known when to come in. Surely that is an inconvenience.
Sometimes a member may agree with part of a motion, and disagree with part of it. If he votes for the motion, then he is registering his approval of everything contained in it. On the other hand, if he votes against it, he is registering his disapproval of the whole motion. The only alternative is to abstain from voting. Possibly that is why in England they have passed the standing order to which I referred a moment ago by which members

Rules of the House
were relieved of the obligation to vote and, if they wished, could remain at their seats.
I shall not detain the committee longer. My submission is that the committee was not appointed to propose such an amendment as this, that there are no arguments which could be offered in favour of it, and that on the other hand there are many which could be urged against it.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Chairman, the subject we are discussing is the amendment to standing order 9. If it were not for the fact that the amendment may come to a vote, and no amendment to the amendment is permitted, I would be inclined to move an amendment to proposed new standing order. I say that because, first of all I am opposed to compelling a member to vote. I can see no good reason why a member of the House of Commons cannot sit in his place and, if he feels he should not vote, be permitted to remain seated, without being forced to leave the chamber. If the matter is to be cleared up so that a member can do so, then I think some note should be taken of citation 69 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition. And, by the way, referring to voting in the House of Commons may I point out that there are some twenty-two citations dealing with standing order 9. However, citation 69 at page 25 reads:
69. Under ancient custom, refusal to vote was considered a serious parliamentary offence, hut the practice was changed in 1906 by the British House adopting a standing order whereby a member is not obliged to vote. That standing order does not apply to the Canadian Commons. The practice has not been changed in Canada where every member *who has heard the question put is bound to vote.
So that, if we want to clarify it, that is if it is the unanimous opinion of the committee that a member should be allowed to remain seated in the .House of Commons and not be compelled to leave, as is the custom in other parliaments, then I suggest that citation 69 be looked up. Apparently there is still doubt in the minds of the Speaker and other hon. members as to whether a member should be compelled to register his vote.
I remember I think it was 1931, when Henri Bourassa was nearly named by the Speaker. The Speaker of that date, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black), called upon Mr. Bourassa to say which way he intended to vote. For about half an hour things were very tense in the house, as I might tell hon. members who were hot there at that time, because the Speaker was about to name him, upon which he would be supposedly sent to the tower but actually, I suppose, it would have been to the Chateau Laurier, where he 100-1481
would have been well looked after. Under the rules he could have been named by the Speaker and, if named, he would have been escorted from the chamber. After some argument the request was withdrawn, but that provision is still in our rules. To my mind it should be completely clarified.
I am against forcing an hon. member to say whether he will vote. When a vote is taken our names appear on Hansard as a record for the people of our constituencies and the rest of the country to see. If an hon. member does not vote, his name is not there. We have the protection of Hansard to show whether an hon. member voted. Personally I cannot see why an hon. member should be compelled to leave the chamber if he is not going to vote. I am against compulsion, and if it were necessary to do so I would be prepared to move an amendment to the new standing order as proposed by the special committee. I am hoping that the matter will be put up to the committee and a standing vote taken, either for or against it, but I did want to register my protest.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, I had
intended to make some extended observations with respect to the general aspects of the report of this committee, but since much of the ground, has been covered by those who have spoken I shall confine myself to three or four matters which I think are germane to the subject under discussion. In his first speech in connection with this matter His Honour the Speaker referred to the fact that no suggestions had been offered in writing to the committee by members of the house, nor had they accepted the invitation sent out by the committee to present suggestions as to the changing of the rules, i think many hon. members feel as I do, that if a formal invitation to present verbal suggestions to the committee had been given it would have been more acceptable. I believe that would have brought forth many suggestions. I only say this because His Honour the Speaker made some mention of it. It is one thing to put suggestions in writing and quite another thing, and I am sure much more valuable, to go to a committee and give suggestions or evidence as may be required.
One matter that has been dealt with very lightly is the question of reading speeches in the house. I do not intend to dwell too much on this because I am free to admit that I would rather hear read a well prepared speech than I would to listen to a poorly delivered speech, even though it may actually be a better one. There is sometimes an advantage in having remarks put in a condensed form and read. However, my remarks must
Rules of the House

not be taken as an endorsation of the reading of speeches in this house. Frankly I think it ought to be discouraged. Debate in the House of Commons is of most use to the people and to the house when it comes freely from the representatives of the people.
I remember one experienced parliamentarian who is no longer in the house but who continues to follow the debates very carefully and studiously. He told me that he never reads the debates which occur while Mr. Speaker is in the chair because he never knew from reading Hansard whether they had been read, whether they had been prepared by the member himself or whether they represented a thesis or some philosophical utterance which was being placed upon Hansard. He read only what occurred in the committee stage of a bill or a resolution. It seemed to him that that is when the best debate occurs. If I may say so, it is at that time that we hear from hon. members what they would be likely to say in normal conversation. I have listened to some experienced debaters, and I notice that except on rare occasions when a statement has to be letter perfect they do not read their speeches. We offer a poor example to have speeches read in the house, and it should be avoided if possible. However, like everything else I do not suppose any hard-and-fast rule can be followed and I repeat the reservation which I made at the beginning of my remarks.
There is one more matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. I think most hon. members have come to the conclusion that there is something wrong in the division of a private member's time. The average elector fails to realize the amount of work a conscientious, industrious and hardworking private member of parliament has to do. I have been a private member myself, and I still am classed in that category. I have found, and I think most private members have found, that the mornings are largely taken up with correspondence, interviews and taking care of various odds and ends. This constitutes one of the most tedious and perhaps hardest tasks a member has to do. If an hon. member takes an active part in committees, he must attend committee meetings during the mornings and perhaps in the afternoons as well. Then he has the afternoon and evening sessions of the house to attend.
I should like to make a suggestion, although I am not sure that it can be properly accepted. However, unless we have suggestions we shall not be able to arrive at definite conclusions. When the days of war stress have passed, when the cabinet and the government have more time at their disposal to devote to

ordinary matters, the time of a private member should be worked out on a different basis. I hasten to point out that this is not a wartime recommendation; it is one for the more normal and perhaps more leisurely days which we hope will come with peace. I think the private member ought to have his mornings free from parliamentary duties in this chamber or in committee. The afternoon sittings of the house might perhaps begin at an earlier hour and extend a little later than six o'clock. Perhaps a six-hour sitting could be arranged without much dislocation by starting a little earlier and ending later in the afternoon, leaving the evenings free for private members to do their committee work. That might establish a better balance for the ordinary private member of the house, because there is no doubt that the average private member, if he is a busy member, has an overlapping and duplication of his duties from time to time from which he should have some relief so far as the rules of the house will permit. I hasten to point out again that I am not proposing this as a solution of the problem but simply throwing out the suggestion in the hope that its advantages and disadvantages might be considered.
It is difficult to arbitrarily restrict members of the house in their speaking time, but from my own brief experience in the house, while I have perhaps never made any very effective speeches in the house, as most hon. members will agree, I do say, open confession being good for the soul, that the most effective speech I have ever delivered in the house as a private member, if this may be used as a yardstick at all, is one that I made on a budget debate when I spoke for' only two and a half minutes. At all events I am proudest of that speech as I stand here to-night.
It is all very well to say that parliament must be shorn of much of its debating rights, but we must use caution in this matter because the interests of the constituencies which private members represent must be safeguarded, and when their interests are at stake there should not, of course, be any undue curtailment of speeches by their representatives. Parliament is often spoken of as being the safety-valve of the nation. While I object to long speeches and to repetition, and I think we all must share guilt in that respect, let us not forget that it is better for discussion to take place in the House of Commons than in the cellars of the nation, for where there is a damming up of free expression, there is no safety-valve and an explosion may take place. That is a matter which may properly be of concern to the house.

Rules oj the House
There is a germ of assistance in the suggestion that has been advanced that there should be a better organization of our debates which would assist in forming a more favourable public opinion, and public opinion, of course, is of great consequence to this chamber at all times. It is important that we should keep the prestige of this chamber as high as possible, also our standards of debate. There have been times, I believe, when the public feels that this chamber has taken too much time in debating subjects which have not seemingly been, of as great interest to the public at large.
Another great difficulty, so far as the public is concerned, is that during the war so much legislation has been taken out of the hands of the legislative chamber and passed through administrative orders and orders in council. That has been dealt with before, and I have no desire to enlarge upon it to-night except to say that since the War Measures Act was put into operation there have been many times and are times and perhaps will be times again when the government has mistaken the urgency of the situation and resorted to that method of legislating, as witness the 42,000 orders in council passed by this government. I want to protest against that method except in cases where the emergency is of the urgent character contemplated by the War Measures Act itself.	#
Coming to the proposed amendment to standing order 9, I find myself very much in agreement with the opinions expressed to-night by the hon. member for New Westminster. It seems to me that we should not compel a member to cast his vote in a division in this house. There are two reasons for that which will at once occur to [DOT] every hon. member. I am not going to go into the pros and cons of compulsory voting throughout the country, but so long as we have not yet adopted compulsory voting for the electors, and so long as we do not compel a voter, once he gets into the polling booth, to cast his vote for any particular candidate-he may spoil his ballot or not mark it at all-we have no right to apply a different set of rules to the representatives of those electors in this House of Commons. I just say that by way of emphasizing the argument so well advanced by the hon. member for New Westminster to-night. I take my stand against compelling members to vote in this house.
The procedure of the house in dealing with estimates is dealt with in the general introduction to the committee's report, and I am in agreement with what it says as to estimates. I think it would tend to get away from ministerial responsibility to take consideration of
the estimates away from the committee of the whole and assign that work to a smaller committee. It may be argued that it would save time, but I am doubtful of that. It might even increase the time which would be taken up in debate in this house. I do not think the suggestion is feasible and I suggest that the committee was right in opposing it. I have dealt with these matters briefly because there are a number of other matters which will have to be discussed as we reach the various proposed amendments to standing orders. Anything further I have to say I shall defer until the other amendments are before us.


Mr. McGARRY:: I am at a loss to know whether I am out in the wilderness. I do not know whether I shall be in order in making a few remarks with regard to the principles of this report; but my understanding was that the amendment to standing order 9 has been introduced and that a free discussion may be had on that amendment.
As a member of the special committee, and, may I say, having had some experience in serving on committees, I never knew of a committee where there was such unified intent on the part of the members to carry out the purpose for which it was constituted. I firmly believe that, but for our persistent adherence to the principle which we believed we were required to follow, that of expediting the work of the house and at the same time preserving the rights of minority groups, more recommendations would have appeared in the report. Yet I believe, in spite of restrictions on that account, the committee has made recommendations which will expedite the work of this house, and that no minority group will suffer thereby.
While we were unanimous on the principle of the recommendations which we submitted, there were some differences with regard to certain of the items. I do not mind confessing that when the matter of curtailing the time for speeches was before the committee, I advocated that instead of forty minutes being the duration of the time for speech making, it be reduced to thirty minutes. Possibly I was not alone in this respect. I advanced this change on account of an opinion which I hold in this regard that, apart from ministers of the crown or others who possibly would not be reckoned as back-benchers, we can say in thirty minutes all the worth-while things on any subject. I have been a listener-in so often, in this chamber and out of it, to men who made excellent speeches so long as they stopped at thirty minutes, but spent ten more minutes-[DOT]


Mr. GRANT:: Spoiling it.
Rules oj the House


Moses Elijah McGarry: -spoiling it, yes, not adding any force to it, their rhetoric no more eloquent and their logic no more convincing than if they had stopped at the end of half an hour.


An hon. MEMBER:: They did not stop when they were through.


Moses Elijah McGarry: Usually we fellows who do not speak very often are in the category of listeners. I can tell the committee this, if you listen for thirty minutes to any man who is probably not an artist in an oratorical sense, when a member of the house is a silent listener for thirty minutes, I cannot help thinking [DOT] some compassion should be rendered him, and that a period of thirty minutes is about as large an oracular contribution as even a member of parliament should be expected to make. However, that is only my opinion. I took issue with the committee on that point, and possibly I had a few supporters. I still hold that opinion. But as for the principle of the recommendations which we submitted, I am absolutely in accord, and when the time comes to show that, either by vote or otherwise, I shall be pleased to support the recommendations.


Jean-François Pouliot: In listening to the able speeches which have been delivered by hon. members, I have noticed a contradiction in the speech of the leader of the opposition. He said in the first place that the free expression of views in this chamber was a safety-valve, but afterwards he spoke of wasted time. This is contradictory. He may feel that the speech of a fellow member is a waste of time, and have a different opinion about his own. That is human; I do not blame him for that. The retort which comes from any hon. member when one asks the specific question, "What is wasted time?" is, "Your own speeches". Then everybody will laugh, and there will be an end of it; it will be regarded as a conclusive retort by many parliamentarians to the fellow who is caught in that trap because he spoke too much. It is a very easy answer: "Did you do it?" "No, I did not do it; you are the one that did it." Laughter, cheers, applause. Most conclusive, very weighty. But one should be more specific than that. The leader of the opposition must say what he means by "wasted time". He was the first who spoke about it; whenever he speaks, or one of his party speaks, that is not wasted time_, but time usefully spent for the good of the nation; but if another hon. member disagrees with them, he speaks too much; he is wasting time and his speeches cost so much to the Canadian poeple. That is the first point.
[Mr. McGarry.l
The second thing I noticed in his short speech is what he said in pressing the adoption of the amendments to the rules of the house. He rose very often to insist upon the Prime Minister so amending the rules that there should be no waste of time, and what does he propose to us? He proposes a brain diet for parliament after the war. It is a post-war programme which he gives us. In the morning, no sittings of parliament, no sittings of committees; in the afternoon, another little diet; at night, another little diet. Three diets, one for correspondence, one for committees, one for sittings of the house, and it will be for appreciation after the war. It is not necessary now, and if it is not necessary now let us drop it, finish it and * take up something else. If the hon. gentleman does not hold the view that it is important to amend at this time the rules of the house, let us finish it right now by dropping it in the waste-paper basket, the place where it belongs. It is the kind of thing which the Canadian people should not have to listen to. Speaking here on behalf even of members of the Tory party who do not recognize the importance of the matter and do not realize that when the election comes there will be hecklers in their own counties who will ask them to report on what has been done by their leaders themselves about this most important question, the defence of parliamentary liberties, T would ask them, what will they have to answer? Poison is given them by speeches like that of the leader of the opposition. He has depreciated the work of parliament; he has spoken of wasted time.
I remember wasted time when Arthur Meighen was leader of the opposition; wasted time- lots of it-when Bennett the humbug was Prime Minister of Canada; wasted time when all the other gentlemen whom I have known, so many of those who have led the Tory party, one after the other, in the house, wasted time; when the hon. member for York-Sunbury was making speeches which lasted for hours; when there was a marathon of speeches all the time between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. And if it was wasted time for the Prime Minister to speak for hours, it was even more a waste of time for the then leader of the opposition to speak for hours.
The present leader of the opposition tells us that on one occasion he spoke for two and a half minutes and that he did not waste time. Well, wasting time is a relative matter. One could waste time speaking for one minute, and even half a minute might be a waste of time. It would be a waste of time on the part of the present leader of the opposition, because

Rules of the House
the best speech he could make would be a wink-say it with flowers. The hon. gentleman is a most likable man. In fact, he is the first one I have seen in that seat, in the twenty years that I have been a member of parliament, who could be said to be a likable man. That is why he has not been chosen leader of his party. That is the reason. The reason is an obvious one; they always choose the wrong man. They did so the last time, and when they select a leader they have the next one in mind. They are untruthful when they select the leader of the party.
I am discussing w'hat the hon. member has referred to as waste of time, and when we come to this very important matter I want hon. members to realize exactly how important it is. I was greatly offended and shocked when I heard the hon. gentleman say, "We will come to more important matters afterwards." It may be more important to him to discuss trivial matters such as garbage and recuperation, but he must know that there are spiritual values and certain rights that count for much more than an ash-can even if it is kept in a million-dollar building. That is why I call the attention of the members of the opposition to the importance of spiritual values which are a legacy to us from our forefathers and which were worth fighting for, and it is for that reason that to-day I protest most energetically and emphatically against the first three pages of this pronunciamento, in which every sentence swears at the sentence following. It is something most incredible. It is not hash; it is not a stew; it is what we call in French gachis-something incredible, an incredible mess. We are to stand for it because it is supposed to be the basis of the amendments that appear on that paper.
I do not believe that members of parliament will support it. It is beyond my expectation. I might have expected the worst, but I did not expect this. It is worse than the worst. Those who will come after us, whether we are successful or not; those who have been opposing this matter from the start, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy), and some others who have opposed it on basic grounds, will deserve the gratitude of future members of parliament.
Not long ago the Prime Minister said something that gives us food for thought. It is food for thought for many members of parliament. He said that after the next election there will be great changes in the House of Commons. Did he mean by that that the members who were supporting these amendments were putting a rope round their necks? I do not know, but I presume the Prime Minister is clever enough to have meant that when
he made that statement in this chamber. I do not see, therefore, why we should have to carry the burden of these contradictory and unacceptable statements, like the Volga boatman, during the whole term of our parliamentary life.
It is time to get down to brass tacks and to realize that when a member makes a speech that is not satisfactory to some other member he exercises the right that is his and the right which that other himself can exercise at any time, and therefore what is being said by a handful of members, who, I hope, represent the opinion of the majority of their colleagues, is that these three pages should be censored by the committee, that they should disappear from the official publication, and the other amendments be considered in turn. In my view, the thing has to be done for the safeguarding of our parliamentary institutions, for the safeguarding of our liberties, and when during the next elections, whenever they come, anyone who has supported official statements of this kind, when addressing the people, need not be surprised if he or she is heckled. Such persons will get only what they deserve because, if our rights are not safeguarded, if the charter of our parliamentary liberties is changed, they will have no reason to complain should they encounter any trouble in addressing audiences outside parliament.
This is my last appeal. I hope that the committee will consider the matter carefully; Someone says, "Oh, oh". That hon. member who says "oh, oh," will be defeated by a huge majority at the next election. He had better look around him at the lights in the chamber; he had better look at the carving of the moose around the ladies' gallery, because it will be the last time he will see these sights, and I will give him a picture of the House of Commons to put in his living-room so that he may remember the days when he was a member of parliament and when he said "oh, oh", when. I was discussing a serious matter.


Alan Webster Neill: Before dealing with the immediate amendment to the standing order in question I want to take the privilege granted by the leader of the house, and taken advantage of by several members of the committee, in order to consider for a moment that portion of the report which has been variously described as a running commentary, a prelude, an introduction and by several othe. names, but never really identified in all its nakedness. I wish to mention one or two things, but I do not want to be charged with holding up the committee. There are two points I should like to bring to the atte ntion of the committee in this regard, and i ne if
Rules oj the House

in connection with the reading of speeches, a question touched on by the leader of the opposition. If this house really wants to expedite its business it should have put that proposal at the very top of the list as an instruction, that there should be no speeches read in this House of Commons. The reading of speeches is the cause of more delay than anything else, but personally I share the view of the leader of the opposition; I would rather listen to a well read speech than a badly delivered one. Because a man reads his speech it does not follow that it has been prepared by some sinister hand outside the house; not at all. There are very able men who can express themselves well in writing, if given time, but who cannot do so spontaneously, and who cannot learn their speeches by heart. Personally I would be in favour of letting them read their speeches, but for one thing; that is, I always object to lending myself to the doing of anything that is made into a farce, and this prohibition against the reading of speeches in this house is absolutely a farce. No genuine attempt is made to enforce it. I am not saying anything against the present Speaker or the present Chairman; I have been here for many years, and it was always the same. The Speaker hesitates to call a man to order, and if he does so the man simply says, "No, Mr. Speaker, I am only adhering somewhat closely to my notes."


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Then why not let him hand in the speech to Hansard without reading it?


Alan Webster Neill: Some men, of course, have good eyesight and can do what I cannot; that is, read their speeches at a distance. I have only notes, and I must look at them closely, but I have seen men give the impression that they were delivering a speech with the aid of but very few notes, while actually they were reading every word of it. Quite inadvertently the other evening I happened to pass behind one of these hon. gentlemen; I looked down at his desk and saw that he had the whole thing written out, even to commas, semicolons, subheads and so on. While listening to him I had the impression that he was not reading his speech, because he did not need to look at it too often, but actually he was reading every word. So that if we are really sincere in wanting to save the time of the house, let us enforce that rule. No one is trying to enforce it now, but if the rule is retained it should be enforced.
I wished to refer to one other matter which should engage the attention of this house and which should have been dealt with by the special committee, which steered clear of it

entirely. That is, they should have brought in, and we should pass here to-night, an amendment providing that the defeat of the government on a petty matter shall not mean its resignation. An adverse vote on a small amendment to some bill, for instance, should not be regarded as a defeat of the government. While perhaps comparatively few hon. members would admit it, I am sure that on many occasions they would have voted differently if it had not been for that custom. A loyal supporter of a party does not like to vote against it; when the whip comes along and tells him that the government will have to resign if they are defeated on some small matter, which will mean an election, he says, "WTell, boys, I did not like that bill but I could not face an election just now." Because of appeals to his loyalty to his party many a man must vote in a way he would never dream of voting if it were left to his own conscience. Why should that be the case? It was never so in the old days. I recall that in the legislature at Victoria a party came in with a very slim majority; if one member went out to have a drink or to get his hair cut, the government might be defeated before he came back. The government, very sensibly, said, "We are going back to the custom of fifty years ago; we are not going to regard an adverse vote in this house as a vote of want of confidence unless it is on a resolution which contains those precise words." That is the proper way to do it. Let the opposition, if they feel strong enough, move that the house no longer has confidence in the government; that is the way to defeat it. Many years ago, when I was quite a young man, it was the custom in Britain-I do not know what it was here-that a government would never resign because they were defeated in the country. They always met the house, even though they knew they were hopelessly in the minority. Then the leader of the opposition would rise and make a motion of want of confidence; it would pass, the government would be formally and officially defeated and would resign.
Now the custom has grown up, though not supported by any rule of law so far as I know, that when a government is defeated at an election it packs its bags and steps out. Whether or not that custom should be adhered to is not so important; the important thing is that no hon. member should be compelled by a sense of loyalty or for any other reason to vote against his own conscience, because it might mean the defeat of the government. There is no reason why a provision such as I have suggested should not be adopted. I am quite certain it would make for better government, because I have seen things pass in this house that never would have passed if they

Rules oj the House
had been left to open votes. I do not know why on earth the committee did not deal with this most important question.
I now come back to the amendment we are supposed to be discussing; that is, the amendment which proposes to compel every hon. member who is in his place to vote, whether or not he knows what he is voting about. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie made a point this evening with which I had not dealt. He said that the alternative to voting would be for a man to go outside the chamber before the vote took place. I could not hear the hon. member very clearly, but I take it he was referring to an instance which occurred only a few weeks ago, when we took votes on several amendments to the main motion. One vote was taken, then another, and finally the last vote was taken without ringing the bell at all, and without giving anyone outside an opportunity to come in. In that instance a rank injustice might have been perpetrated. A few months ago I sat here during a division and did not vote. To tell the truth I have forgotten what was the occasion, but I was quite decided that neither party had a good case, and I did not see why I should express sympathy with either side. I felt they were both playing politics and that there was no need for me te endorse the one side or the other.
What was the purpose in mind in setting up this committee? It was "to simplify, accelerate and expedite the business of the house." I do not know why it was necessary to put in the two words; either "expedite" or "accelerate" would have been sufficient, but that was what the committee was appointed for; that was what we call the reference, what we told them to do. How are we to expedite the business of the house by adopting this amendment? We have been told that this is an urgent matter, that the public demand it, but that is all bunk. No one is demanding it; no one is outspoken about, it. It is some thirteen years since this matter has been brought up, and there has never been any trouble about it. Not since 1906, which is thirty-eight years ago, hap the British parliament, to which we look for guidance in cases of this kind, forced anyone to vote whether or not he wanted to do so. Surely, as some hon. members have said, we can leave it to the honour of a member, and to his constituents. The constituents do keep note of how their members vote, and they would be quick to ask, " Why didn't you vote this way or the other?"
Then a man might have private reasons for not voting. I believe there is a rule of the house, though I have not had time to look it up, which says that a man may not vote if his 100-149
private, pecuniary interests are involved. For instance, he should not vote on a bill to give a franchise to some company in which he had a financial interest. The house does not always know a man's private affairs. He might have a perfectly proper pecuniary interest in a company and his sense of honour would lead him to abstain from voting. Then fie would be compelled to stand up and be pilloried. He would be asked, "Why did you not vote?" He would reply, " I had my own reasons for not voting." Then he might be told that was not sufficient, after which the absurd procedure of naming the hon. member would be gone through, though that died out a hundred years ago, and ostensibly he would be committed to the tower. I remember that on one occasion a man was committed to the tower in Victoria, which meant the best hotel in town. By and by the government realized what idiots they were making of themselves and said to the man, "You can come out." He replied, " Not if I know it. I am living comfortably here; I can come and go as I please all day," and he stayed there until the end of the session, when the law automatically let him out. It is a very unpleasant experience, as some of us here know, to be named. It is a disgrace. It is put on the record, and it stands against a man for all time-that he has been named, and escorted by a policeman outside of the chamber.
It is not necessary to do that, unless it is absolutely unavoidable. A question of religion might be involved. I might say to some of my people, "I am not in favour of that, but I will tell you what I will do; I will do nothing against it; I will not vote against it if it comes up." Here, in one way or another, I am obliged to do something against my promise and my conscience.
Can anyone tell us where there is any precedent for such a rule? Great Britain has gone on for thirty-eight years, and we have gone on for a number of years without enforcing it. Who asked for it? I ask this: Will that simplify, accelerate or expedite the business of the house? Every time this comes up there will be a squabble about it, and someone will put up a fight. If a person must give his reasons he is perhaps revealing his private affairs. Will that expedite the business of the house? I can remember Miss Macphail being compelled to vote. There was a complaint about it, and it led to our adopting a rule, more or less unwritten, that we should never compel anyone to vote.
The penalty is so severe that it is undesirable. I submit that the proposed amendment ought to be thrown out, because it is contrary to the instructions we gave the committee.

Rules of the House

We instructed that committee to take steps to accelerate the business of the house. I can safely say that that will not accelerate the business of the house.
I am glad to see how many are willing to vote against this change. And having had all this discussion, I find, as a matter of fact, that that is the rule now. The present penalty is not put in, but the only difference is the penalty. It is a very unjust penalty. Let me refer the committee to citation 68, standing order 9:
If a member who has heard the question put does not vote, and the attention of the Speaker is directed to the fact, the latter will call upon him to declare on which side he votes; and his name will be recorded accordingly.
But, following the custom, and by agreement on both sides of the house, that was abandoned. Its abandonment was animated by common sense, and it was dropped out. Why is there all this fuss about putting it in now, with this very unjust and unfair penalty?
The hon. member for New Westminster has said something about moving an amendment. He does not need to do so. All he needs to do is vote against this abortion of a rule.


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to get into this discussion. However, if someone did not take part it would continue as a two-man show. I am surprised at this debate. A House of Commons committee was appointed for the purpose of bringing in recommendations as to how the work of the house might best be carried out. In my opinion it requires and can stand considerable improvement. Each group in the house was privileged to appoint members to the committee, and the committee sat under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, a man whom we all respect, whose fairness we recognize and in whose judgment we have confidence.
Under his chairmanship the committee, as is set out in the preamble to the report, asked any hon. members who so desired to place their views on procedure before the committee in writing. As the preamble states, no suggestions were received. If we were interested in expediting the business of the house, in protecting the interests of private members, and in all those other things we now appear to fear, then certainly we were lax in our duty in not assisting the committee to come to an understanding in accordance with our views. No member of the house availed himself of the invitation by the committee to send it the benefit of our views.
One would have to listen carefully to realize that we are discussing standing order 9, and the preamble to the report. Any committee which understood its business would,

in dealing with a matter of this kind, write a preamble to any specific recommendations it might have to offer. So far as I am concerned, I believe this matter was considered carefully by the committee, while a member of this group was listening in. We have confidence in the man we placed on that committee. Reading the preamble to the report, I must say I can find nothing wrong with it.
For example, it states that one day of each week should be set aside for the purpose of discussing supply. Surely that is an improvement on sneaking into supply at ten minutes to eleven at night. No one knows when we are going to have supply, and all are guessing about it. The committee, in the preamble, definitely suggests that we set aside one day a week for that purpose; and with that suggestion I find no fault.
They set out the many problems with which they had to contend, and they have expressed the fear of interfering with the rights and privileges of anyone. They point out the difficulties .connected with amending regulations or standing orders, particularly in view of the war situation, and the encroachment the government has already made on the privileges of private members.
Then they suggest that where a protracted debate is likely to take place, in order to give each member an opportunity to express the views of his particular group, representatives of each group should meet. That is a matter of custom; it is done anyway. It is merely a reiteration of a custom which has grown up in the past. So far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the preamble.
I am not going to say anything about the other specific recommendations. I have, however, this to say about standing order 9, which we are now discussing. A member of the House of Commons is sent here to represent his constituency. What he does in the house is not his business; rather it is the business of the people who sent him here. He will have an opinion on any legislation passing through the house. Such legislation will be either good or bad for his constituents. They are not able to judge, but he is. He sits here, listens, takes part in the debate and has an understanding of the legislation. If he is in his seat in the chamber, it is his obligation to vote, and it is his responsibility to his constituents to show them, by the written record of the house, how he voted, whether he was taking care of their interests, or otherwise. If he wishes to leave the chamber and say he vras not present, that is his own responsibility.
But I believe it should be the duty of members of the House of Commons to vote,

Rules of the House
and it should be the duty of those enforcing the rules to see to it that when the bell rings the members are in their seats. When a motion or an amendment is before the house, one which means something to a member's constituents, it is his moral obligation to show them how he voted on that motion, and to show whether or not he was interested in their welfare. I do not think there should be any argument about that. For any hon. member to take the position that what he does is his own business alone is not my conception of carrying out the duty devolving upon a member of parliament. I consider myself to be the spokesman of the people of my constituency and of the people of the Dominion of Canada. The people of my constituency have sent me here with certain hopes and aspirations as to the manner in which I will carry out my responsibilities in taking care of their problems. What I do in this house should be done with a thought to the welfare of my constituents. Any matter that is before this house offers me a supreme test as to whether or not I am interested in it, whether or not I have the courage of my convictions. I must consider what action I shall take, whether it is good or bad for me politically. I do not think any member who is in his seat when a vote is taken should shirk his duty to his constituents.
I am surprised at the length of time that has been spent in discussing this matter. I think the committee have done as good a job as they could in the time at their disposal, having regard to the many complications surrounding the matter. I consider that the amendment to standing order 9 is quite good and should be accepted, plus the preamble. We will speak about the other amendments as we come to them.


Mr. HANSELL:: I am glad to learn from the previous speaker that we are discussing an amendment and the preamble, since I have been trying to find out about that. This afternoon I listened to some long speeches in connection with the suggestions contained in the preamble. I must confess that I am not entirely in sympathy with those who object to them. I see no harm in those recommendations, but at the same time I would not care to cast my vote for all that is expressed in the prologue. I do not agree with the contention expressed in the second paragraph. I shall not take the time to read it; I simply make that statement. I do not agree with the statement made in the first part of the third paragraph, which reads:
The present procedure was devised to reflect the freedom of all the members of the house, but we must realize that in war time parliament 100-149J
is bound to divest itself of some of its prerogatives in order to strengthen the government's power.
I absolutely do not believe that statement; I absolutely am not in favour of that statement. My contention is that the government has too much power, that it has taken unto itself more power than parliament ever intended it should have. I quite agree that parliament should give way to war-time legislation, but for my part I will not let it go by without vigorous protest. I do not agree to giving the government more power. The fact of the matter is that power in a demorcracy rests with the people, not with the government. In Canada parliament is the body which represents the people; the government does not represent the people. The government is the administrative body that has been called upon to execute the legislation that parliament puts into effect. But the government does not represent the people; parliament represents the people.
I should like to say a word with regard to the amendment to standing order 9. I cannot say that I have any objection to this amendment. I do not agree with some who have contended that a man should not be in his seat in the chamber when a vote is taken if he is not going to vote. I do not know why he needs to be here if he is not going to vote, unless it be to watch the rest of us perform as we make our little bows to His Honour. When a standing vote is taken the bells are rung for two or three minutes, and if an hon. member does not want to vote he has plenty of time to go to the lobby, put his feet up on a chair and smoke his pipe if he wants to while the rest of us decide which way we intend to vote.
If this amendment carries I fancy it will put an end to the custom of pairing. I do not know why pairing is allowed. Personally I never could see any wisdom in that practice. I think it tends to encourage loyalty to party rather than loyalty to the people. When a man must be away he gets a member on the other side to refrain from voting in order that the parties may still retain their proper standing. I do not go much for party machinery. I think private members when they take their places in the house should do so as representing the people, rather than a party. Having made these observations, I am prepared to favour the ameudment to standing order 9.


Charles Edward Johnston: I doubt if this amendment would stop a man from pairing with another.


Mr. GLADSTONE:: The committee is discussing the report of the special committee appointed to revise the standing orders of the
Rules of the House

House of Commons. I desire to renew my plea for greater independence on the part of private members. I set this forth in a speech I made on February 8, which is reported on page 263 of Hansard as follows:
To this end members of parliament, especially in this time of world crisis, ought to exercise their right to advocate and consider legislation with less regard to party affiliation. Members now have freedom, in theory but not ip general practice, of voting according to their judgment. Consequently I advocate that the defeat of a government measure shall not constitute defeat of the government.
Confidence or want of confidence in the government, after non-acceptance of proposed legislation, should ibe determined by a separate vote. An adverse majority on a confidence vote would then constitute defeat of the government.
In the United States there is no such thing as a vote adverse to the administration. An adverse vote means no more than a favourable vote. Under their constitution an election is held every four years, and consequently members of the senate or the house of representatives need not fear that they are forcing a defeat of the government and bringing on a general election when they vote in a certain way.
Since I offered those suggestions on February 8 I have had much favourable comment in editorials and in very kind letters sent to me by Canadians from all parts of the country. I have some evidence that in emergencies this practice of continuing in office even in the face of an adverse vote is being employed. For instance, I find an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 25, which carries the following heading: "Premier Drew prepared to accept test on confidence." Premier Drew's comments at that time were as follows:
This is not a minority government. It is the government called to give executive direction to the affairs of this legislature. It may be a healthy thing to see members free to express their own opinions and vote in accordance with their own views.
This cannot be a minority government. You have the power to move a want-of-confidence motion which we will ibe glad to accept as an issue. If this is not done, we must imply you have confidence in the continuance of our work as the government of the province.
As for the terms on which we will govern, there are no terms and no thought of dictatorship. Even a hint of dictatorship is a reflection on the man who makes it.
We are in the position where we must depend entirely on your support of what is done.
We do not intend to govern in a spirit of fear. We assume full responsibility, and as soon as you feel we have not confidence, the democratic test is there.
We have another instance of a government arriving at a situation in which they had difficulty. I have in my hand a Canadian Press

dispatch dated March 28, from London, and it is headed: "No censure intended in vote against government." Members will recall that on that day Prime Minister Churchill's government suffered the first defeat in its history by a single vote. The situation was reviewed, and on the following day, on a definite vote of confidence or no confidence, the government was sustained by an overwhelming majority.
What is the effect in parliament of the practice that the government is defeated on an adverse vote? One serious drawback is that private members supporting a government that has a very large majority need give no concern to studying the legislation that is before parliament. If they take their cue from the Prime Minister or the cabinet ministers as to how they will vote what need it matter whether they give any study whatever to the legislation or not? I can say to any young man in Canada who is contemplating entry into parliament that he will be grateful if when he comes into this house he finds himself on the opposition benches because there he has an opportunity to speak whenever he wishes, whereas on the other side of the house, according to the practice that prevails of ministers leading and carrying on the discussions, there is very little for private members supporting the government to do when that government has a large majority. Therefore I would say that in the interests of careful consideration of legislation, members, if they will not do it of their own accord, should be forced into the position where they must study the legislation in order that they may know how they should cast their vote when the division bell rings. I do not desire to enlarge on this point, but I think Mr. Speaker and his committee would do well to consider, if possible at this time, a further amendment to the standing orders in order that private members may be given additional freedom and additional encouragement to take a greater interest in the legislation that is presented day by day. I am sure that the effect of forcing private members into the position where they must study the legislation in order to know how to vote would go a long way toward keeping this chamber filled during the discussions and get us out of the present situation in which we are criticized for taking little or no interest in what is going on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may say one word in regard to the exact issue as between the proposed amendment and the present state of the rules. If hon. members will look

Rules of the House
at citation 69, on standing order 9, in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, second edition, page 25, they will see that the last part of that paragraph reads:
The practice has not been changed in Canada where every member who has heard the question put is bound to vote.
The citation in that book has not the force or sanction of a standing order, and the amendment proposed by the special committee to the house would make it a rule as part' of standing order 9. If the proposed amendment is defeated, the practice of the house, according to its custom, will be exactly what it is now, but His Honour the Speaker will not have a definite rule with the sanction of a standing order to guide him in ruling when occasions arise as they did between 1930 and 1935, as those of us who were in the house then will recall, when there was uncertainty because the practice was not embodied in a standing order. That is the issue concisely and clearly. Whether the amendment is defeated or not we will still have the practice, but the Speaker will not have a definite standing order to guide him in the decisions he has to make.


Grote Stirling: Can the hon. member find the same wording that he quoted in the third edition of Beauchesne? I presume, if we are to be guided at all, we are to be guided by the latest edition of Beauchesne, and I am unable to find that wording in the third edition.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was unable to find it repeated in the third edition, may I inform my hon. friend. It is only a comment of the clerk of the house and has not the force or sanction of a standing order. Any observer can make such comments as he sees fit, but they are not binding on the house. The citation quoted only indicates what the practice of this house has been, and the practice has been in force as a matter of custom, but not as a matter of law and not because of a standing order.


Mr. CARDIN:: As to the observations made by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, I think I am bound to take issue with him. His argument is based on a citation on the standing orders in the book prepared by Doctor Beauchesne on the rules of the house. These marginal notes are only an indication or a recording of the practice of the house; they are a record of decisions of Speakers in the Chair, but there is no rule of the house and no standing order existent at the present moment obliging a member to register his vote. There is nothing beyond a citation which has been written out of the precedents which
have prevailed in the past. But I have observed that for a number of years, five or even ten years, the practice has changed, and hon. members have been allowed to remain in their seats and not register their votes on the question. Thus a new practice has been developed which contradicts to a certain extent the marginal note referred to by the minister. At present hon. members are at liberty, according to a practice which has prevailed for several years, not to vote on a question when they feel they are not bound to do so, or when they are not convinced that it is proper or in the interests of their constituents to vote yes or no. This may happen very often on a matter of relative unimportance, upon questions which are coloured by political advantage for one party or the other. An hon. member may feel that he should not take side on an issue which is purely political and which has no other purpose than to reap some political advantage later on.
I am in favour of every member of the house being at liberty to register his vote or to refrain from registering it. The argument has been advanced that we are speaking here for our electors. It is true that each of us represents a section of the country, but it is left to the member to execute his mandate according to his own judgment. If he feels that there is no justification for his registering a vote on a question of no importance, or when, in his judgment, a case has not been made out, he should be free to refrain from doing so, and if there is any criticism to be made of his action, let the electors who sent him here make that criticism. It is not for the house; it is not, with all due respect, for the Speaker, and it is not for the government to impose upon a member an obligation to vote when according to his conscience and his judgment he feels he should not register a vote. Liberty should be preserved to the member to decide that matter for himself.
I do not like the severity of the amendment which is proposed. It seems to me that the penalty to be imposed is much too severe and too great for the offence. It is though we ' were to decide that a man should be hanged because he stole a bottle of whisky. The penalty is out of proportion to the offence.
I propose to vote against the amendment. It is not on account of any fear I entertain of expressing my opinion on any question which is brought before the house, or that I am afraid of expressing my views on any matter which is being discussed in public or in this chamber. I am going to* vote against it because it changes a practice which has prevailed for several years, and because I want to preserve the liberty of a member to decide what he is going
Rules oj the House

to do in this house and in what way he will represent the electors who have sent him here.
So much for the amendment. But it has not been made clear to me exactly what proposal we are discussing or arguing. The whole afternoon we have heard arguments against the preamble to these proposed amendments, and a very strong case has been made against the suggestions contained in the preamble. What is at present before the committee? It is a report of a special committee appointed apparently to improve the business, the deliberations of the House of Commons. That report is composed of two sections. In the first section will be found recommendations or suggestions or advices which are being given, without stating that they should be embodied in any standing order, but nevertheless suggestions which are of a very important and serious character and which, if applied, might raise sound objections and are likely to curtail the discussion in this House of Commons to a dangerous degree and prevent groups and minorities from expressing their views with regard to questions which come up for discussion here. We are told that these are only pious wishes, that they are merely suggestions; but that is a point of view expressed by those who have delivered speeches supporting the report. We have a document which has been placed before us in accordance with a motion by the Prime Minister. He moved:
That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider the report of the special committee on the revision of standing orders.
And the question being put on the said motion it was agreed to. The house accordingly resolved itself into committee of the whole on the said report, and progress having been made and reported, the committee obtained leave to consider it again at the next sitting of the house.
We are at present considering the report of the special committee appointed to revise the standing orders; and when all the amendments proposed are approved, or some of them disapproved, and you, Mr. Chariman, make your report to Mr. Speaker, you will report that the committee of the whole has been considering the report of the special committee. So that if we agree to the report made to Mr. Speaker, approving the report of the special committee, it will mean that the, House of Commons has also approved the recommendations or the suggestions or advices included in the preamble of that report. You cannot separate the two things. If we do not

agree about the preamble, let us advise the Chairman not to report on the report of the special committee but only on the amendments which have been considered by the committee of the whole, if such a procedure is permissible.
I think we should have some clarification of the situation so that we may know exactly what we are dealing with. Are we dealing solely with the amendments proposed, or are we dealing indirectly with the suggestions or proposals contained in the preamble of the report? This ought to be made clear. The report is rather awkward because it contains two sections which do not agree. If what is contained in the preamble is worth our consideration, why did the committee not suggest some amendments to carry out the proposals contained in the preamble? It is an indirect way of amending the rules or suggesting a method of procedure to the government with regard to the transacting of the business of the house.
I am inclined to agree that it would not be necessary to have the suggestions contained in the preamble clearly embodied as standing orders, because practically all the suggestions that are made in the preamble can be put into effect as the rules stand at present. They are suggestions that are made to the government as to procedure. But if we approve the report as it is before us at present, we approve the suggestions that the special committee has been making to the government, and we authorize the government to proceed according to these suggestions. And possibly not this government, but some other government might look upon it as a precedent and might say, if the same questions should arise later on, "Well, the procedure that we are at present following has been suggested to us by a special committee appointed to consider the standing orders, and the suggested methods of directing the debates of the House of Commons have been approved by the whole House of Commons, so that we are justified in following those suggestions now, since they constitute a precedent approved by members of the House of Commons sitting as committee of the whole."
That is why I insist upon some clarification being made of the situation and some clear indication being given to us as to what we are really voting on at the present time. I would be inclined to accept the statement that has been made, if I remember correctly, by the Minister of National Defence, that the preamble contains only the pious wishes and advice and recommendations of the committee, which the government is not bound to follow or to put into effect. But I should

Rules oj the House
like to have a little more definite, pronouncement that the government as a government do not accept them as a direction and do not interpret the voting of the committee on these amendments as an approval of the suggestions made in the preamble and as a direction to the government for the conduct of the business of the House of Commons. If that clarification were made there would be less difficulty in accepting or disposing of the suggested amendments.
I suggest that we need to know what is really the position and what is to become of the preamble.


Alan Webster Neill: May I interrupt the hon. member. Perhaps he was not in the house when we discussed this question before, but the Chairman has ruled that it is not a preamble but a part of the report, and that makes the position worse.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It makes my position
stronger if it is a part of the report of the committee. In dealing with it at the present time and approving the suggested amendments which we are presently discussing, we are approving that other part of the report with which so many members have expressed disagreement. That is the position I propose to take myself, and I do not hesitate to give my vote against the first amendment, having in mind that I am also opposing the suggestions that are contained in the preamble.


James Allison Glen: Several questions have been asked this evening regarding the amendment to standing order 9. One statement was that it was not contained in Doctor Beauchesne's, third edition. The reason is this. It was not transferred from the second to the third edition because of the uncertainty of the law with regard to voting in the house. When that matter was brought before the committee I perhaps insisted more than others that some declaration should be made by this committee, because after all we were dealing with the rules of the house where corrections could be made which were necessary in the light of the experience of past years and this was the time to do it. I had it brought before me in the house the week before the first meeting of the committee. There was a vote in the house, and one hon. member asked me whether a certain member who had not voted should not be compelled to vote. I stated that I preferred not to give a decision then because the law to my mind was not clear and I did not know what powers I had to compel a member to vote, and if I did endeavour to compel him I did not know what penalty I could impose upon him if he did not vote. The result was that the question has been in a state of
indecision, and it is a serious matter, because I can quite well understand that a question might be raised on some issue which was being voted upon, upon which there might be keen anxiety, and there might be considerable delay in the proceedings of the house, which might give rise to contentions that need not ensue. Consequently, when the committee considered the matter, they adopted this amendment and put it before the house. As I have already said, the committee have endeavoured as best they could to interpret what might be the wishes of the house. Hon. members have now this amendment before them and must decide what shall be the law of the house when this report is finally disposed of.
The difficulty in this matter is that if the house does not agree to the amendment, we are then placed in the same position as we were in before, with an indecisive law so far as the. house is concerned, and that, makes it rather difficult for a Speaker to enforce the law, supposing he is asked by the house to do so. The rejection of the amendment will mean, therefore, that we shall be back where we were before. I do not know how we can rectify that. I should like to see some declaration from the house either for or against, but if it is against then I think something should take its place. Either the member should be obliged to vote, or he should not be obliged to vote. If the house in its wisdom arrives at a decision in that regard, that is all I want; but speaking personally I do wish to have some direction from the house.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) has referred to the introduction to the report. I have emphasized already that there was no intention on the part of the committee that the introduction should be considered as obliging either the government or the house to make amendments to the rules. These recommendations, as they are called, in the preamble were never intended to be recommendations which the government should implement; they were simply the thoughts in the mind of the committee at that time as to ways in which the procedure of the house might be altered in the discretion of the government and of the house. I think the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is not correct when he says that the report as a whole will be reported by this committee to the house. What the chairman will report will be the amendments the committee has approved; it will not be the report itself. That is what was done in 1927. There was no long preamble then, but on March 22 of that year, at page 316 of the Journals, I find this:
The report of the special committee appointed to consider the advisability of revising the standing orders usually called the rules of the
Rules of the House

house, was again considered in committee of the whole, reported with amendments, considered as amended, and concurred in, on division, as follows.
There was no preamble, if it can be so called, to the report of that special committee, but in conclusion this is stated:
If the proposed changes are concurred in by the house, it will be necessary to renumber and reprint the rules. Your committee recommends that the present report be only put in force at the next session of parliament. All of which is respectfully submitted.
Itodolphe Lemieux,
Chairman.
The position will be that the chairman of this committee will repo'rt the amendments which have been moved and to which the concurrence of the house is desired. There is no question in my mind, and I think there can be none in the mind of any hon. member of this committee, that a government could possibly propose to found any legislation upon recommendations such as those referred to, especially in view of the expressions of opinion which have come from hon. members in opposition to the recommendations contained in the first part of the report. The house will simply concur or not concur, as the case may be, in the recommendations of the committee as far as the proposed amendments are concerned.
Personally I saw no necessity for the discussion that took place on the introductory portion of the report, because after all what the house has to deal with are the amendments that are being proposed to the rules of the house. These proposed amendments have been approved by the special committee; if reported by this committee and adopted by the house, they will form part of the rules of the house. The hon. member for New Westminster referred to a citation in connection with amending the rules of the house. Hon. members will realize that a citation in Doctor Beauchesne's book is of value in showing the practice that haS been followed in the past, and possibly in pointing out the law, but it has not the effect of a standing order. You cannot amend a citation in Doctor Beauchesne's book, but you can amend a standing order.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres requested the government to make a statement with respect to the introduction to the report and the statements contained therein, to the effect that the government disagrees with it and that it will not be considered as a precedent. The fact is that this report comes from a committee of the house, not from the government. Each member of the government is only an individual member of the house as far as this report is concerned. After the discussion which has taken place

to-day, however, I am sure any future government that proposed to found any action upon the report would only have to read the pages of Hansard to know that the introduction was not considered as part of the proposed amendments to the rules.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres asked by what authority I was occupying the Chair at the present time and what sort of report would be made to the house. The authority will be seen at page 1107 of Hansard -for March 3, 1944:
Mr. Speaker:	I have the honour to present
the first and final report of the special committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house.
Hon. Ian A. Mackenzie (Minister of Pensions and National Health):	With the consent of
the house I move:
"That the report of Mr. Speaker for the special committee on the revision of the standing orders be referred to the committee of the whole on Tuesday next."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
This afternoon when Mr. Speaker left the Chair and the house went into committee of the whole, after calling "order" I presented the following order to the committee: "House in committee of the whole to consider certain amendments to standing orders. Standing order 9". Then I read the amendment which is now before the committee. When I make the final report on the matter now under consideration by the committee of the whole, this will be the report to Mr. Speaker: "Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole have adopted certain proposed amendments to the standing orders of the House of Commons, and have directed me to report the same".
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: May I draw your attention to the fact that when you are reporting to the Chair a matter which has been considered in committee of the whole, you do not report that certain amendments have been considered by the committee of the whole. You report a bill that has been considered by the committee, together with the amendments that have been made in committee of the whole. In this case your power has been given under the motion of the Prime Minister on March 7 that the house proceed to take up in committee of the whole the report made to the house by the special committee. That is what is now before this committee; that is the report we are at present considering. I submit with all due respect that when you report to the Chair your report must be, "The committee has been considering the report made by the special committee appointed to consider amendments to the standing orders of the House of Commons." If you want to make a report in accordance

Rules of the House
with the motion, you must state that the committee of the whole has considered the report of the special committee; you cannot say simply, "I am reporting certain amendments." Amendments to what? Where have you taken them from? Who proposes these amendments? You have been taking these amendments from the report of the committee, so that you must present to the Chair the report of the committee, not just the amendments, which means that you must report the preamble as well as the amendments themselves.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I must repeat that this special committee was appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in revising the standing orders of the house. The special committee reported to the house and the report was referred to the committee of the whole, to consider and pass or amend the amendments contained in the report.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: But that does not alter the fact that what we have before us is a report, with which we must deal in its entirety. You cannot separate one section from the other. We are considering the whole report, whatever it is.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the record may I say that, generally speaking, I am in agreement with the preamble as set out in the report. But definitely I wish to say I regard the amendment to standing order 9 as a detriment to the rights and privileges of private members of the House of Commons.
Generally speaking, issues which come before the house are so clear-cut that, after considerable debate members have enough information and knowledge to decide whether they wish to vote one way or another. But now and again it may so happen that even after debate a private member is not in a position, and does not have sufficient information upon a question to vote. Only once since I have been a member of the house has such an occasion arisen, and I should like to recall it. That was the time when the official opposition asked that certain documents be placed before the house. The documents had been before the war expenditures committee and had been seen by that committee in camera. I was not of the opinion that those particular documents should be brought before the house and published in a time of war. Therefore I could not vote with the opposition. Neither could I vote in support of the government, because I had not seen the documents. To have voted in support of the government
would have been a blind vote. Upon that occasion, knowing that if I sat here I should vote, I went outside the chamber and did not vote.
Even if this amendment passes, and if occasion should arise when Mr. Speaker must name me, may I say that I would prefer to be named by Mr. Speaker than to vote blindly upon any measure. It is possible that such a question might not arise again for years. But it is also possible that a private member might be placed in another situation of exactly the same kind. I see no reason why a private member should be forced to vote, if that member does not have sufficient information to make it possible for him to vote according to his conscience. In the instance I have indicated I could not vote unless I saw the documents in question and read them through, and had satisfied myself that they were correct or incorrect. Neither, on the other hand, could I support the idea of having this placed before the public in a time of war.
In an instance such as that I feel that if one were controlled by an amendment such as the one now before us it would be somewhat of an indignity if Mr. Speaker should have to name me, or I should have to remove myself from the chamber. Therefore I state most emphatically that I shall vote against this amendment.


James Layton Ralston: Following what has been said by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, as to the attitude of the government, may I say to him and to the committee that, assuming that the amendment now before the committee should pass-and that is all that is before the committee, in my humble opinion-so far as the government is concerned it will not regard that as an approval of anything more than is contained in that amendment.
I wish to say further, in reply to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, that the committee was appointed in the first place for the purpose of assisting in revising the standing orders of the house; and the preamble which my hon. friend ties on to this particular amendment has, I submit, nothing to do with the question we are now considering. The only substantive resolution before the Chair is the resolution amending standing order 9. That stands on its own feet, and is dealt with separately from anything else.


Jean-François Pouliot: I move:
That the word "recommend" at line twenty of the second paragraph on page 2 of the report be stricken out, and that the word "suggest" be substituted therefor.
Rules oj the House

I note that in reading my amendment Mr. Chairman has had some difficulty. In the committee we have no stenographer to which we might dictate our amendments. I realize my handwriting is hard to read, so that I can understand the trouble he has had.
The sentence now reads:
We therefore recommend that, when the yearly estimates have been brought down, one day a week be set aside for consideration of supply.
With the amendment, the sentence would read:
We therefore suggest that, when the yearly estimates have been brought down, one day a week be set aside for consideration of supply.
That amendment is important, because it is no longer a recommendation from the committee. It is just a suggestion. I hope the leader of the house will understand that I have done my best to catch the olive branch he has offered to the committee. I have showed my good1 disposition, what the Prime Minister calls good will, in making the amendment. This will put everybody in a good mood, and will bring about an early settlement of the difficulty.
I have never attended any meetings of the League of Nations at Geneva, but I have tried this peace movement, this appeasement, for , those who have been dissatisfied with the way in which the report was drafted.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Order. I must say to the hon. member for Temiscouata that his amendment is out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: It may be out of order, but it is the basis of the proposed amendment. And, instead of taking out the basis of the amendment, I wanted to put a little cement in it, so that it might be in better shape than it was before. Even if my amendment is out of order, it has shown my good will.
Now, if we are about to talk about the proposed amendment, we will talk about it. How many times have I boosted parliamentary institutions in the United Kingdom! His Honour the Speaker has said that at times he has been embarrassed because we have no definite rule about the right to vote when one is sitting in the house. He has said that we have no definite law. But let us first read the first standing order of the House of Commons. It states:
In all eases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
[Mr. Pouliot.l
We may now turn to page 28 of Doctor Beauchesne's book published in 1927. The second part of citation 87 which appears on page 28 reads:	.
A member is not obliged to vote. S.O. 29, British H. of C.
I am very sorry to have to disagree with Mr. Speaker about the matter. If the former Speaker, the Hon. Mr. Lemieux, was embarrassed about deciding this matter during the hectic session of 1926, it w'as due to his ignoring the fact that there was a standing order at Westminster which ruled that members were not forced to vote. I remember that Ted Garland was a member of the house at that time, as were the late Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Bourassa, and they all decided not to vote. They were handicapped to a certain extent when they were told that it was their duty to vote. They asked to be shown the standing order by virtue of which they were bound to vote, but nobody could show it to them.
It is now suggested that we should penalize an hon. member who remains in his seat during a division, who is not hypocritical enough to want to go behind the curtain when a vote is being taken and where all he needs to do is just cover part of his body. I maintain that it is the right of a member of parliament to stay at his desk and decide whether he will vote or not. A member should have the right to remain in his seat without having to run behind the curtain. This concerns the independence of parliament. A member of parliament should not be faced with the possibility of being named by Mr. Speaker, a thing that would bring shame upon him. He should not be forced to have to run behind a curtain where he can show his face but where he must keep one-half of his body hidden. It is the most ridiculous thing on earth to state that the report could be acceptable to anyone. I have my own Veasons for saying that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is all right for the hon. member to interject during this debate because he will not have a chance to do so after the next election. ' The hon. member for Fraser Valley is one of those who will be defeated with a large majority.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-François Pouliot: I have the floor and I do not want to be interrupted by anyone.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I rise to a question of privilege. Perhaps my hon. friend will listen to me for a minute. I did not interject.

Rules oj the House
I have listened to his nonsense and I never interjected in any way, shape or form. I was speaking to another hon. member in front of me, and I was certainly not lowering my dignity or the dignity of the house by interrupting such nonsense while we are at war.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, will you please ask the hon. member to withdraw the language he has used. I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member has no right to say that the remarks of another hon. member are nonsense. I want your ruling on that. If you rule in favour of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, then I will use the same language about him a million times.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not believe the statement made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley is unparliamentary.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I use it a million times against the hon. member for Fraser Valley.


Mr. McCANN:: This debate appears to have resolved itself into what constitutes a report. I am of opinion that what is called the introduction or what has been referred to as the preamble should constitute part of the report. Hon. members should by their votes say whether or not they are in favour of that particular part of the report. If one looks in a dictionary he will see. that the definitions of "preamble" and "introduction" are much the same; they are almost synonymous terms. "Preamble" means preliminary remarks.
It states here specifically that this is the first and final report of this committee. In the report are two specific recommendations, which read in part as follows:
We therefore recommend that, when the yearly estimates have been brought down, one day a week be set aside for consideration of supply
The next recommendation-note that the term is "recommendation", not "suggestion"- is as follows:
Our recommendation is that, when there is reason to believe that debate will be protracted, parties and groups recognized in the house shall confer and make arrangements either for allotting days or laying any plan for saving time
What is the position? If we concur in certain recommendations which appear later on, there are still two substantial and important recommendations which will not have been dealt with and for which at some time or another there will have to be further standing orders provided. As far as the amendment to standing order 9 is concerned, I shall vote against it. I do not see why it
should be obligatory upon any member of this house to vote unless 'he sees fit to do so. As far as I am concerned I shall be responsible to my constituents for what action I take, whether I vote or whether I withhold my vote.
I suggest that it will be high time to oblige members of the house to vote, to make it obligatory that they vote, when the law of this country is that everybody shall be obliged to vote in a general election.
The position I take is that the report in its entirety should be discussed and concurred in, perhaps with some amendments. I am ready to assume the responsibility to my constituents as to whether I vote on any question that comes before the house. I can get away from that responsibility by absenting myself, but that is a poor way of doing it; that is a childish way of doing it. I submit that I should have a perfect right to exercise my own discretion and judgment and not have to face a certain penalty.


Mr. MAYBANK:: I am in entire concurrence with the statement of the previous speaker that the forepart of this report could be voted upon. Furthermore, I see no harm in registering the opinion of this committee upon these two recommendations. Before the dinner recess the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was urging that they be set out specifically at the conclusion of the discussion on the other recommendations. I should have liked to see the committee agree that at the conclusion of these recommendations, or at the first if you like, we record whether this committee is in favour of these recommendations or contrariwise. We should not have had the difficulty we had this afternoon. I submit that we can very well settle the amend-[DOT]ment to standing order 9 immediately. Surely we all have our minds made up on it. For my part I do not think it is very important one way or the other. I do not believe that most of the members of this committee think it or the two recommendations in the early part of the report merit all the debate we have had upon them.
I should like to make this suggestion to you, Mr. Chairman. There is no thought of applying closure or anything like that, but we have had a field day here this afternoon on these various proposals and also a sort of field day on a great many asides that some member or another would make, and we would then barge into a debate on them. I would appeal to you now, Mr. Chairman, that we agree to vote in due course on the two recommendations that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has so often brought to our attention this afternoon, and then let us dispose of the
Rules oj the House

amendment to standing order 9 right away, and see if we cannot get one step forward before the hands of the clock move on many minutes.


Mr. KINLEY:: I was pleased to hear the minister who is leading the house say a few minutes ago that the preamble or introduction was not to be considered in this committee. I was glad of that because it contains a strange doctrine to which I do not subscribe. Paragraph 2 of the committee's report reads as follows, speaking of criticisms of this house by those outside:
These criticisms arise from opinions concerning the functions of parliament which are often based upon such misconceptions as the view that parliament is primarily a board of directors with the members oif the cabinet as its executive staff, and that members, instead of endeavouring to reconcile as much as possible all the elements of public opinion, which is difficult in our diversified country, should rigidly consider every question on its own exclusive merits Such however is not the true function of a legislative body composed of 245 members elected to discuss the management of public affairs Debates may sometimes be lengthy but they bring home to the administration the advisability or unpopularity of a particular line of policy and they must be heard because democratic government rests upon public opinion. Parliament is the assembly of representatives elected by the people where great issues are debated-
'Debated", mind you.
-or should be debated; it is not primarily a body of auditors charged with the inspection of departmental accounts. Freedom of speech is one of the inalienable privileges of members of the House of Commons.
And thus it goes on. This report by a committee of the House of Commons would reduce parliament to a debating society. Furthermore, it says:
Mr. Speaker, from the special committee appointed to assist him in revising the standing orders of the House of Commons, presented the first and final report of the said committee, which is as follows.
Then follows the introductory part of the report which we are told now is only drapery to the main report. We are told that it has no virtue. If it has no virtue, why is it there? When we had a motion made earlier in the evening to delete that part from the report it was ruled out of order. We are told by the people who support it that it has no virtue, and we are told by the minister leading the house that it is not to be considered by this committee. Why, then, should we not delete it? That is mysterious to me. I cannot subscribe to this part of the report and for that reason I shall vote against it.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the hon. member was slightly mistaken in his conception of what the hon. gentleman who is leading the house said a few moments ago. What he said in answer to the lady member was that passing of the amendment to standing order 9 in no way conveyed approval or concurrence in the earlier part of the report. The hon. gentleman behind me took that as meaning that that part of the report would not be considered at all. But the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres made it very clear that the report as a report must be adopted as such or rejected. I wish to compliment the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres upon the able way in which he expressed so well what I was saying much worse this afternoon.
The hon. member for Renfrew South made a very good suggestion. He said that he was not going to vote for this amendment to standing order 9. But a little difficulty arises there. I also agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who made the best suggestion of all. He said that if these amendments are amendments-and they are-why not dispose of them for good or evil and let us get on. There is only one slight divergent point. I was impressed by the remarks made by Mr, Speaker. He said that there has been confusion in some places as to whether a man had or had not the right to vote.
I should like to make this suggestion, which ought to meet the whole situation and expedite the thing. Mr. Speaker gave the impression that he was not so deadly struck on putting through this amendment in its present form, but he did want a definite ruling by which he could govern himself in the days, and I hope years, which are to come. I therefore move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "added" in the proposed amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"A member present in the chamber when the question is finally put by Mr. Speaker shall not be obliged to vote."
That would give us a definite ruling which should satisfy the desire of Mr. Speaker for definite instructions. I think it would also meet the wishes of a large number of members, and it would also be in accordance with the rule which has prevailed in the British House of Commons for thirty-eight years. It might be said that this amendment is unnecessary, since voting against the main motion would have the same effect, but I am moving it to meet the situation envisioned by the Speaker.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Standing order 9 reads:
Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered upon the minutes, unless demanded by five members.

Rules oj the House
The special committee propose the following amendment:
And every member present in the chamber when the question is finally put iby Mr. Speaker shall be obliged to vote, and if he does not vote Mr. Speaker shall call upon him to vote and his name shall be recorded accordingly. If he persists in not voting he may be named by Mr. Speaker for having violated a standing order of the house.
Mr. Neill moves as an amendment to the amendment:
That all the words after "added" ibe struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"A member present in the chamber when the question is finally put by Mr. Speaker shall not be obliged to vote."


John James Kinley: Before the motion is put I should like to know what is the position of the preamble at the moment.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That matter was discussed this afternoon when we went into committee. I made a ruling, and a general discussion was allowed on the report.


John James Kinley: Moreover, Mr. Chairman,
you ruled out an amendment to delete the preamble. There was a motion made to delete the preamble and you ruled that out. Subsequently, the minister who was leading the house said, I think, that the preamble was not being considered by the house and would not be part of the report.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend is referring to the passage which I think he is referring to, it was in answer to the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, who asked for an assurance by the government that an approval or a disposition of the amendment to standing order 9 would not be regarded as an approval of the sentiments or the recommendations or the suggestions contained in the preamble, and I made the positive statement that the passing of the amendment to standing order 9 would be regarded only as an approval of that amendment in the terms in which it was set out.


John James Kinley: What is the position of the preamble in the picture?


James Layton Ralston: As I see it, if I may suggest this to the committee, there is before the committee no motion with regard to the preamble at all,'but there is a definite motion before the chair that standing order 9 be amended by adding the clause which is here, and that is all that is before the committee. The committee was desirous of discussing the preamble, which contains no amendment whatever to any standing order-and I remind the committee that the special committee was appointed for the purpose of amending the
standing orders, not for the purpose of making suggestions or recommendations of the kind which are contained in the preamble-but because of the fact that this amendment is the only thing which is before this committee, and not the preamble, that is the thing which I think the committee should consider.


John James Kinley: Do you not think that the fact that the matter has been dealt with in the way it was gives the unanimous approval of the house to the introduction?


James Layton Ralston: Let me make it clear
that the government is taking no part in this. I am sitting back and watching the members of the house deal with the rules of the house, and I am taking just as little part in it as possible. I am glad to help if I can, but I have heard a good deal this afternoon about democracy, free speech, and things of that kind, and I think Hansard will show pretty good evidence that there has not been much restriction in that respect. Whether or not that has contributed to the effective consideration of the serious question which we have had to consider, namely the substantive recommendations in the committee's report, remains to be seen. However, as far as the government is concerned, hon. members have had a perfectly free rein in that respect, and all I have done is attempt to help if I could, to see that the rules of the house which we have at the present time and which are not amended are carried out, and hon. members are at liberty to make any such motions as they think proper if they are within the rules of the house. My own thought was that a motion regarding the preamble was not within the rules of the house, because a motion had been made by the Speaker and was put by the Chairman, a specific motion amending standing order 9. No motion is before the Chair at the present time with regard to the preamble, and I find it difficult to bring myself to think that by any stretch of the imagination, either the approving or disapproving of that amendment to standing order 9 can be regarded in any way as expressing any view one way or the other on what is set out in that preamble. It just means that it is disregarded, and that when these matters come up for consideration-and, by the way, one of them could be germane to a standing order of the house-they will have to come up, not by way of a recommendation such as we have here, but by way of an amendment to the standing orders. The one I have in mind could be related to standing order 17, which provides that when government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit. If the committee
Rules of the House

or anyone else wants to attempt to put into effect the suggestion or recommendation contained in that preamble with respect to the setting aside of special days for the discussion of estimates, he would have to bring forward and place in the hands of the Chairman a substantative amendment to standing order 17, and that has not been done. The preamble does nothing more than express some pious opinions as to what might be done, in the opinion of a committee of this house. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the situation is pretty clear. We have roamed over a great deal of ground, but we are back to just one thing; that is, must a member vote or may he not? That is all there is to it. The amendment suggested, if I may say so, is rather vague; it just says that hon. members shall not be obliged to vote. Somebody will say, "So what?" Supposing a question is put and no hon. member votes; what then?


Grote Stirling: I wonder if I may ask the hon. member for Marquette whether in his opinion this is a proper amendment.


James Allison Glen: I have no objection to the amendment personally, for reasons I have given already, though it might have the implications of an expanded negative. The amendment merely provides that a member in' the chamber at the time a vote is called shall not be obliged to register his vote. Penalties are provided in the original amendment which will be deleted if this amendment carries; and while I do think it comes somewhat near the realm of an expanded negative, yet I think it is in order. It denies the purport of the original amendment, but it adds a provision to the standing order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Those in favour of the amendment will kindly say, yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the vote is taken-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The vote has been taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the vote is taken, in view of the fact that the more recent statements which have been made in the committee have been opposed-


Thomas Bruce McNevin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I maintain that the question has been put.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On the point of order, I may have been a little hasty in calling for the vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I started to say, in view of the fact that the more recent statements made this evening on this subject have been in opposition to the idea of compulsory voting, I feel that I should briefly state my view, which is on the other side. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that if this amendment should carry, the last state would be worse than the first; then we would find ourselves with a standing order stating specifically that hon. members were not obliged to vote. My fear is that, as a result, in the future there would be more abstention from voting than there has been in the past.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We might not have a vote at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the Minister of
Pensions and National Health interjects, there might be no vote at all. I see it in very simple terms. I was sent here by a constituency which has a population of some sixty or sixty-five thousand people. I am supposed to be a responsible person representing those people; I feel it my duty to give consideration to all matters that come to a vote in this house, and I feel I should be obliged to vote. I hope that the amendment will be defeated and that the main motion will carry.
While I am on my feet may I say that I shall oppose some of the other amendments that are to come before us just as vigorously as some hon. members are opposing this one. So far as this one is concerned, I feel that in the form in which the committee gave it to us it should be adopted.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I am still a bit puzzled as to the point of order. As I understand the position at present, this matter is before the committee as a result of the motion of the Prime Minister that the Speaker leave the Chair for the house to go into committee to consider a report from a special committee. If that is the case I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I may be wrong in this, but it would appear to me that the extent to which we can go is either to reject that portion of the report we are dealing with or to refer it back to the committee with appropriate recommendations. If my understanding of the matter is correct, this committee has no power of its own volition to amend a committee's report that is before us in the manner in which this report is before the committee. I want a ruling on that point of order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not clearly catch the point the hon. member was making. There is quite a bit of murmuring around me.

Rules oj the House


Roy Theodore Graham: My point of order is this.
The particular matter we are discussing comes before the committee as a result of a motion of the Prime Minister that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair to permit us to go into committee to consider this report from a special committee. Has a member of this committee the right to do more than reject, to vote against the recommendations of that committee, or to move that the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The report could be
amended.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is exactly what has happened before. The hon. gentleman's question refers to the proposed subamendment to standing order 9. It is exactly the same as before, when I moved to dispense with the preamble or introduction or prologue contained in the first three pages. I was told it was not before the committee; but whether any motion is made by any member of this house, whether he is Prime Minister or a backbencher, makes no difference. The committee has the right to reshape it as it sees fit. It is the rule of the majority that governs in spite of what is said in this pamphlet-may I call it that-about the rights of minorities. I am ready to submit to the rule of the majority, the majority of this committee, and I am not bound by what has been decided by a special committee. They were appointed to report to us and they have reported to us. Are we or are we not satisfied? If we are not satisfied we have a right to tell them so. We can accept what they recommend to us or we can reject or change it. We have that right and that is done by the majority. That is why I appeal to the majority of the committee to get rid of the report, not to hear any more about it, because these changes would not improve the debates in the house, but would be a source of trouble and would deprive members of the rights they have. When I think of what the hon. gentleman has said, it is a matter of great concern to all of us at the present time. It is suggested by the subamendment that members shall not be obliged to vote. That is right. But there is something else. It is the basis of that recommendation, which is the three first pages, these invisible pages, which we cannot get rid of because they do not seem to be before us. If they are the basis of the report, then they are not only the basis of this subamendment, but they are the basis of each one of the subamendments and can be discussed on each one of the subamendments. Is it not better to get rid of it right away? To show how wrong the basis was for each one of the subsequent amendments, we might as well dispense with it
right away by unanimous consent and say that it is made clear that these three pages are not before the Chair at the present time.


Thomas Langton Church: After to-day's debate, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we leave the rules alone until the rules of Hitler are beaten.


Angus MacInnis: I was going to suggest that the amendment is out of order since it is a direct negative, but in view of the fact that you have accepted it, Mr. Chairman, and said that it is in order, all I can say is that it is about as crazy an amendment as I have ever heard of, because we are sent to this house to carry on the business of the country; the business of the country is decided by the votes of the members and all that the amendment says is that although we are sent here to carry on the affairs of the nation, we need not do so when we come here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A reductio ad absurdum.


Angus MacInnis: What I was going to say might not be parliamentary, but we have here a good demonstration of about as nice a filibuster as I have seen in a long time to prevent anything being done.


Mr. WOOD:: I feel it would be my duty to vote against this amendment. We have frowned upon the apathy of the public in not registering their votes, and it would be a good example to the public if they could say that even members of parliament are not obliged to vote. In consequence of that I am going to vote against the amendment.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Call it eleven
o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned until Thursday at three o'clock p.m., pursuant to special order made Monday, February 21, 1944.
Thursday, April 27 1944