1956-06-08

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to make a brief statement and a suggestion about the business of the house and the business of the country. I want to suggest to all hon. members, and particularly to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other parties opposite, that we should consider carefully whether it might not be possible to reach agreement on a course of action to meet a serious aspect of the situation now facing this house. I would ask the leaders opposite not to give me an immediate answer but to consider what I am about to say and to let me know before the house meets on Monday whether they would be agreeable to following the course I am going to suggest.
All hon. members are, of course, aware that the interim supply voted to defray the cost of administering the affairs of this country since April 1 is virtually exhausted and that, unless additional money to carry on the administration is voted at an early date, many thousands of people in this country will be faced with inconvenience and even serious embarrassment. It seems to me that all our fellow citizens do expect this parliament to conduct the nation's business in such a fashion that party warfare, which is inseparable from our form of government, does not result in unnecessary inconvenience and hardship to the people of Canada whom we are all here to serve.
In other sessions it has been usual at this stage for the government to ask for and for the opposition to agree to the voting of one month's interim supply in order to permit the administration of the affairs of the country to be carried on while the work of the session continues. To do so now would not deprive members of the opposition of the means of continuing their opposition to the government. There are many contentious items on the order paper about which it would be possible for hon. gentlemen opposite who wish to do so to oppose the government as strongly as they feel they would be justified in doing. I would, therefore, hope sincerely that it might be possible for the parties 67509-307
opposite to accept this suggestion I am making that we should proceed on Monday by agreement to the granting of interim supply for one month in the usual way.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):: This statement sounds very
plausible but is in keeping with the manner in which I regret to say the Prime Minister has put forward certain other suggestions within the past few days. What should be remembered is that this house does not yet know what the plans of the government are in regard to the continuance of this session. What would ordinarily be regarded as sources extremely close to the government have been stating it is the intention of the government to adjourn within a short time. If an adjournment is to take place, it presents an entirely different situation than that with which we would ordinarily be confronted.
Before we speak of other matters, I should think that the government would be only accepting its responsibilities to the house, all of which form a part of the general responsibilities of parliament, in telling us what it is the intention of the government to do. The Prime Minister has said that it seems all our people expect us to conduct our affairs in a way that will not cause disadvantage to the people of Canada. I would point out that it has been the custom to bring down interim supply before the earlier supply had come to an end. This is now June 8, and supply came to an end on May 31. I regret to say that this is only in keeping with the manner in which much of the business of the house is done, that we should be asked to vote interim supply at a time when the supply has already expired.
Naturally we will be ready at any time to consider any proposals, but since the Prime Minister has seen fit, and that of course is his right, to make this statement in the house before it has been communicated to me as Leader of the Opposition or to the leaders of the other parties, I believe it is appropriate to reply also in the house and to say that before suggestions are made as to the way in which business should be done in regard to the details now before us, it would be most appropriate if the government would inform us as to whether it intends to continue this session without interruption until our business is completed or whether it is intended to adjourn the house. This would have a very

Business of the House definite bearing upon the voting of interim supply without any examination of the details now before us.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish merely to say on behalf of this group that even as we have been giving all these matters serious consideration for many days, we shall continue to give serious consideration to the situation that now confronts not only this country and the house but the government. Like the Leader of the Opposition we feel that before we are asked for an answer more information should be given to us than has been indicated by the Prime Minister this morning.
So far as this issue is concerned, I would remind the Prime Minister and the government that several days before the end of May I began to ask the Minister of Finance questions regarding interim supply. I made it clear that we were conscious of the fact that interim supply was running out and that in our view the normal course was for the government to bring down interim supply before the date that the money already on hand had run out.
However, Mr. Speaker, at this point I merely wish to indicate that, as we have been doing, we will continue to give consideration to the situation.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we will be prepared to give careful consideration to what the Prime Minister has suggested. At the moment I see no relationship whatsoever between the need to have interim supply for the period of one month and the future plans of the government with regard to adjournment or to any possible adjournment. They need the money; the bills have to be paid. We have never yet taken more than a couple of hours at any time, so far as I can remember, to vote as much as two months' supply. However, so far as we are concerned we shall be prepared to join with others in giving careful consideration to the Prime Minister's suggestion and on Monday we shall let him know exactly what we decide.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker,
I am sorry that it is not possible at the present time to announce, or even to make, any plans for the future course of this session. This matter of interim supply is one of immediate urgency and I would hope that it would be considered in that aspect and as a routine matter that could be dealt with in the usual way.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish in any way to engage in a debate on this subject but I would point out that it is now June


8, and if there is any foundation whatsoever for the statements that are appearing in the press that it is the intention of the government to adjourn before the end of June, that is now known to the government. To say that the government is not in a position to inform the house as to what its intentions are is straining the credulity of the members of this house rather severely.
The point I wish to make is this. We certainly have no desire to see anyone suffer as the result of the failure of the government to conduct its business in the ordinary way. Nevertheless, the government has seen fit not to follow the ordinary course by delaying the introduction of supply until some time after it would ordinarily come before the house. The extent to which it would be appropriate for us to facilitate the discussion of this subject depends on many things- and certainly we are as anxious as the government is that there should be no inconvenience to any Canadian because of proceedings here-but the fact is that we should know before we give an answer of that kind whether it is the intention of the government to adjourn the house and in that way postpone all consideration of the estimates where it will be possible for us actually to examine the business of the people of Canada. Obviously, that creates an entirely different situation. If we are to proceed without interruption to deal with the estimates such as those of national defence and other departments which are large spending departments and of extreme importance, or if on the other hand there is to be a deferment until a date when the major part of the expenditure will already have taken place, or have been committed for the remainder of the year, I do think the Prime Minister should be in a position to tell us the intention of the government with regard to adjournment. I cannot believe there are any uncertainties at the present time which would make it impossible for the Prime Minister to give that information to the house which at this stage of the session he should be able to give.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, it had been the intention of the government to suggest that there be an adjournment over the summer months. Now, what has taken place is of such a character that we shall have to reconsider whether or not it would be possible to make that suggestion to the house with any hope that it would meet with the approval of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister to give consideration to that matter before we meet to discuss the

manner in which the business to which he has referred will be proceeded with.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, June 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drew:
In view of the unprecedented action of Mr. Speaker in (a) improperly reversing his own decision without notice and without giving any opportunity for discussion; (b) repeatedly refusing to allow members to address the house on occasions when the rules provide that they have the right to be heard; (c) subordinating the rights of the house to the will of the government, this house resolves that it no longer has any confidence in its presiding officer.
Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the house would generally agree that my paraphrasing of the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) clearly establishes his high regard for the Speaker as a man and particularly, because it is more relevant in this context, his great confidence in the particular role which he has in this house, and that that confidence prevailed, as far as the hon. member is concerned, up until a point somewhere between ten o'clock on Thursday, May 31, and the 1st of June. That was not, however, the view of the hon. gentleman who leads the party which my hon. friend supports, for the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation said at page 4650 of the current Hansard that what he had heard in the pipe line debate was evidence of what he called partisan rulings and the Leader of the Opposition in his carefully and moderately uttered statement observed that there had been rumblings about the quality of the Speaker long before the pipe line debate began; sometime, presumably, during the course of the recent winter. It is clear, however, that as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was concerned his alleged confidence was shaken only at the time I have indicated. He has said that the Speaker did not act independently.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have always understood that argument by assertion is not in fact argument at all. For one hon. member to say that the Speaker did not act independently is not in any way to establish with any justification that he did not in fact act independently. I can understand my hon. friend saying that perhaps of others with whom he did not enjoy the same measure of acknowledged and avowed intimacy and the cordial relationship which he 67509-307i
House of Commons
had with the Speaker, the man who was his friend up until that period of May 31.


Stanley Howard Knowles: June 1.


Paul Joseph James Martin: June 1. This is what Mr. Speaker said at page 4539 of the current Hansard about whether or not he had acted independently:
I want to tell hon. members that I know what my responsibilities are and that I am fully conscious of every step that I am taking.
Then he went on:
I am prepared to take responsibility before this house and the country for what I do.
The Speaker says he has acted independently and if my hon. friend really means to establish, as I know he does, his regard for the Speaker, this great friendship which has prevailed up until the very last moment, then I do not know what canon of fairness would suggest to my hon. friend to make an assertion that the Speaker did not in this matter act independently. Are we to have guilt by association, accusation by insinuation, and slander by smear, particularly of one's friend, the man who holds the highest office in the gift of this house?
I noticed that when the Prime Minister was speaking the other day the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation applauded the Prime Minister's observation that all or most of us in this house have regard for His Honour the Speaker. The leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation applauded that remark. I am at a loss to understand that kind of gesture. If the Speaker of this house was deserving of the implications of this motion, supported by the hon. members I have mentioned, I do not know how they can say that they have regard for the Speaker.
Mr. Gladstone once said when he was bitterly attacked that he did not want the friendship and the fulsome praise of his opponents who had branded his remarks as not capable of measuring up to the truth. I will not carry on the logical implication that flows from this reference to Mr. Gladstone, but it surely on reflection must apply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who I believe is sincere when he says that he has friendship for the Speaker. Not in any part of his speech, which I read three times since it was delivered last night; not in any place has there been any kind of evidence by which one friend would judge another friend to be guilty of impropriety.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has presented us with a motion. He did not go as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg

House of Commons
North Centre, but I think his motion deserves to be read at this time. It reads:
In view of the unprecedented action of Mr. Speaker in (a) improperly reversing his own decision without notice and without giving any opportunity for discussion; (b) repeatedly refusing to allow members to address the house on occasions when the rules provide that they have the right to be heard; (c) subordinating the rights of the house to the will of the government, this house resolves that it no longer has any confidence in its presiding officer.
Mr. Speaker, the very wording of that resolution without any supporting speeches is justification for not accepting the motion at all. Assuming that the Speaker did not give notice and did reverse his own decision, does that constitute a basis for a motion of censure? Supposing the Speaker did refuse to allow members on occasion to speak on points on which they felt they had a right to be heard, is that justification for a motion of censure?
I do not agree that the Speaker reversed himself, but I am prepared to argue that even if he had, at best he could be accused or charged with an error of judgment, with misinterpretation of the rules. But in the absence of intention to be malicious and mischievous he certainly does not under our practice in this house or in the British House of Commons warrant the accusation and implication involved in a motion of censure. He clearly did not reverse himself. At page 4531 of Hansard of May 31 the Speaker is reported as having said:
It would seem to me, however, that in a matter of this kind the thing to do, after having placed ourselves in a position where we can deal with the matter, especially since I am concerned, is to postpone the consideration of that motion.
I am trying to save time, and I quote now from page 4532, where the Speaker continues as follows:
-I am not going to object; I am just going to let them go right ahead, but at one stage of the proceedings I want to say that I will have to be heard.
Then at page 4539 the Speaker made his ruling. He said:
I am prepared to take the responsibility before this house and the country for what I do . . . Today we meet; I make a ruling.
There is nothing to suggest, as this motion suggests, that the Speaker had in any way reversed a decision which he had taken the night before.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Will the minister permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Provided that the Speaker allows me the time taken for it.


Colin Cameron: Will you give the ruling that refers to my motion, not the one that refers to the other?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will put his finger on it-


Colin Cameron: Page 4537.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall come to that at the end of my statement. I have read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and I think it was, having in mind the context of the preceding days, an admirable example of restraint, but let any member of this house read every word of that speech and he will not find one accusation against the Speaker that would justify our resorting to what Mr. Herbert Morrison has called the rarely used technique of challenging in a fundamental position the authority of the Speaker.
There was never any suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the Speaker had not acted independently; he had reversed his decision; he had refused to listen to members who raised points of order; and on that account-and on that account alone -he deserved to be censured by this house. I do not believe that anyone can argue that it is the obligation of the Speaker to permit, or that he is allowed to permit, a debate on a point of order. When the Speaker does permit members to speak to a point of order, they appear before him as amici curiae, friends of the court, but not debating a proposition, with no right to debate the question. If that is the case, how can the Leader of the Opposition suggest that the Speaker at any time refused to permit hon. members to speak?
Even if he had refused them to speak, are we bound only by the letter of our rules? Do we not, in the conduct of any democratic proceeding, in this country or in the western world, recognize that the presiding officer has the right at any time, where the rules do not precisely cover a situation, to use his discretion as to what in the best interests of all concerned is the proper, orderly way in which to proceed? Surely the Speaker must be allowed that kind of discretion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me finish this point. I have carefully examined the record during the night, and not one reference have I been able to find where within the rules of this house any hon. member was denied the opportunity of speaking when, as I say, within the rules he had that undoubted right. Even if he had that right, I say that the Speaker, in the context of the situation that confronted us the other day, had the right inherent in his office of presiding over our proceedings in a manner that would direct us out of chaos into orderly processes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether or not a Speaker is called upon to allow debate on points of order, will the minister not recognize that, according to citation 110 of Beauchesne's third edition, the raising of a point of order is in order by any member at any time? It is there in citation 110 of Beauchesne's third edition, but that right was refused several times.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend makes that point, and I am prepared to say this. Even if what he says were true, I would say that this is not a justification for taking the man who holds the highest office in the house of this free parliament and subjecting him to all that flows from a vote of censure. That is what I say. I find that perhaps no one has stated the situation more effectively than has the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I want to remind the house of some of the observations he made before I come to a point that I regard as being extremely important. He had been referring to the background of the controversy-and I use that phrase in order to be as objective as possible in my presentation-one that undoubtedly taxed the patience and ingenuity of the Speaker. Here is what the hon. member for Acadia said as reported at page 4653 of Hansard:
In my opinion the Speaker has always been lenient in listening to advice on points of order and unfortunately instead of appreciating that the opposition has abused it.
Those are the words of the hon. member for Acadia, not mine. Then he goes on to quote the first part of the resolution as follows:
In view of the unprecedented action of Mr. Speaker in (a) improperly reversing his own decision without notice and without giving any opportunity for discussion;-
Then the hon. member for Acadia continues as follows:
We in this group are of the opinion that on Thursday the Speaker did make a mistake in rendering his decision regarding the point brought up by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). If that situation had been left as it was then it would have created a precedent that would have brought chaos into this house in the future. It would have meant that at any time any hon. member in this house disliked legislation the government sought to introduce and wanted to obstruct it, all he would have to do would be to get a friend of his to write a letter to the press and then bring it up, as did the hon. member for Nanaimo, and we would have obstruction without end because every time a letter is written to the press it could then be raised as a point of privilege in this house, and there would be no end to those points of privilege.
House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, is not that the true assessment of this whole situation? The Speaker was confronted with an unusual situation. There is nothing in our rules which says that, in regard to that kind of a situation, the Speaker cannot use his own discretion as to the best conceivable way of bringing about order. If he had not taken the step that he took, we would not have had whatever degree of order later followed and continued. This statement of the hon. member for Acadia perhaps represented only his own assessment of the situation. He may possibly not have known that he was expressing a view that is not only within our tradition but is part and parcel of the very rules which we operate here and under which parliament operates in the United Kingdom. I was not aware of that fact until early this morning when I took oil my library shelf a book written by Herbert Morrison, entitled "Government and Parliament". At page 200 I find this reference which I will read. He was speaking about discussion, private members' rights, closure and so on; the actual title of the chapter is "The Closure". At page 202 he said this:
For example, although there had been talk about the need to expedite business by curtailing private members' rights, it was only in the panic which followed the successful Irish obstruction in the 1880's that the house parted with its long preserved liberties. One of the most far-reaching of these reforms was the closure (that is to say, the motion 'That the question be now put'). It was first used by Mr. Speaker Brand, on 2 February 1881, who, in the course of a long debate and considerable obstruction, decided to put the question without further debate. He made a dignified statement saying that he considered that a crisis had arisen in parliamentary procedure and that the tedious discussions were against the general sense of the house.
That is the important thing-"against the general sense of the house". The quotation contains:
He ended by saying that further measure for ensuring orderly debate must be left to the judgment of the house, meaning either that the government must take responsibility by bringing forward appropriate orders or that the house itself must find ways and means of solving the problem.
That is the commentary of Mr. Morrison who spoke for his party on procedural matters in the House of Commons during the years from 1945 to 1951 and who wrote this admirable book which includes many references to procedural questions. After much difficulty and with the help of the librarian I recovered the parliamentary debates that were in the hands of one hon. member opposite, and I refer the house to what Mr. Speaker Brand said in 1881 as recorded in Hansard for that year. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows, Mr. Speaker Brand was one of the great Speakers of all time, whose decisions are constantly

House of Commons
referred to. He has been referred to by Mr. Churchill as the kind of man who furnishes the standards by which he who presides over our proceedings shall be judged. Mr. Gladstone in 1882 moved closure because of the circumstances that attended the debate on the Irish bill in 1880 and 1881.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How long had the debate been going on?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will come to that. But Mr. Speaker Brand, confronted with a situation for which there was no provision in the rules for the remedial action which he might take, had to give consideration as to whether or not the sense of the house-the sense of the situation, the desirabilities in the matter which every man under our system, even though it may not be written, clearly understands is proper on occasion to have applied. What did he say? Here is what Mr. Speaker said on that occasion. It is the kind of thing that the hon. member for Acadia envisaged in his own excellent observation. Mr. Speaker Brand,- and this is before the closure-with no justification by anything embodied in the rules of parliament, was acting as I say in appreciation of what he felt was the sense of the situation, just as our Mr. Speaker acted, I submit, last Friday in accordance with what he thought, in his best judgment, honestly conceived, was the sense of the situation. I will at once endow hon. members opposite with the right to take issue with this statement of mine, but in the absence of being able to establish that the Speaker did not act honourably, this motion has not the slightest justification for presentation in this house. Here is what Mr. Speaker Brand said:
A crisis has thus arisen which demands the prompt interposition of the Chair, and of the House. The usual rules have proved powerless to ensure orderly and effective debate. An important measure, recommended in Her Majesty's Speech nearly a month since, and declared to be urgent, in the interests of the State, by a decisive majority, is being arrested by the action of an inconsiderable minority, the Members of which have resorted to those modes of ''Obstruction", which have been recognized by the House as a Parliamentary offence.
The dignity, the credit, and the authority of this House are seriously threatened, and it is necessary that they should be vindicated. Under the operation of the accustomed rules and methods of procedure, the Legislative Powers of the House are paralysed. A new and exceptional course is imperatively demanded: and I am satisfied that I shall best carry out the will of the House, and may rely upon its support, if I decline to call upon any more Members to speak, and at once proceed to put the Question from the Chair. I feel assured that the House will be prepared to exercise all its powers in giving effect to these proceedings.
... I am satisfied that I shall best carry out the will of the House, and may rely upon its support,

if I decline to call upon any more members to speak, and at once proceed to put the Question from the Chair.
If that is not the most classical justification for the decision taken by Mr. Speaker, the friend of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), his most cherished friend, the man who knows more about the rules of this house, it is said, than anyone else, then I do not understand the implications of the language of Mr. Speaker Brand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have not yet told us how long that debate had gone on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition will remember the circumstances under which he himself, in 1947, urged in the Ontario legislature that the question be now put. That was an unusual procedure. The hon. gentleman, when he comes to speak, will tell me whether or not I am correct in saying that that procedure is not embodied in the rules of the Ontario legislature. There was some question about the authority taken by the Speaker, that is whether or not he was justified in the circumstances. I am sure that the Speaker of the day in the Ontario legislature, as the hon. gentleman, could make a strong argument for the course he had taken. In any event, those who opposed that course would not have had the justification of challenging the authority of the Speaker or saying that he had acted improperly or dishonourably.
There are three alternatives before us in this matter. We have said that none of us like this situation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that when he spoke. We have heard the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) say that this was an unfortunate matter to have to deal with. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said he did not like it either. The leader of this government, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), proposed that the motion be withdrawn but the hon. member for Prince Albert said, speaking in the name of his party, he would not accept the Prime Minister's suggestion. What are the alternatives? The suggestion that an unnecessary election should be imposed at this time on the people would settle nothing. It would not settle this issue. This issue, under our traditions and under our rules, can only be settled in one place and by one group of men and that is by those of us who at this time constitute the House of Commons.
Mr. Herbert Morrison recognized that was the case, for at page 204 of his book on "Government and Parliament" he writes:
Motions can be put on the order paper criticising or even censuring the conduct of the Speaker or

his deputy (the chairman of ways and means) or the deputy chairman of ways and means. These may then be debated and may even be voted upon. Such occasions, fortunately, are very rare.
But they do happen, and on the occasions when they do happen the way that they are resolved is by the house concerned taking a decision as was taken in 1881 and in 1882 in Her Majesty's parliament in the United Kingdom. So, if we cannot have this problem resolved by the acceptance of one of these two alternatives I have mentioned, then what is shameful in this house being called upon to make a decision? Who is more competent than the members of this house who have watched Mr. Speaker operate over the past three and a half years? Are they not the ones who can best decide whether or not he deserves our continued confidence? Speaking as one member in this house, I have every confidence in Mr. Speaker. For three years he has discharged his responsibilities with honour, impartiality and maturity. I may say that I thought sometimes he permitted too much general discussion on points of order which in the final analysis he alone had to decide. But of course that is not a valid argument against him. It is in his favour as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said last night.
I see no justification but one for this motion that is before us at this time. It is one that I wish the Leader of the Opposition, who is an officer of this house and who holds a very responsible post just as the Prime Minister does, will see fit at some time to dispose of in a manner which will be in accord with our traditions and in accord with the dignity and the proper functioning of our deliberations. But that is not for me to say. I simply say, as one member of this house, that I have confidence in Mr. Speaker and I continue to have that confidence. I see no justification in this attempted censuring of a man who, admittedly on all sides, has acted so creditably throughout his speakership.
The Leader of the Opposition reminded us of what Mr. Speaker said when on November 12, 1953, he spoke to this house on assuming his high office. Mr. Speaker said, amongst other things:
I shall, I assure you, strive to deserve your effective support, and endeavour at all times to prove myself worthy of your trust.
Is there any hon. member in this house who will divorce himself from the incidents of the past weeks or who will confront those incidents objectively who can authoritatively assert that the Speaker has not sincerely carried out his trust? What evidence exists anywhere for any suggestion to the contrary? If there is no evidence, mere innuendo, mere insinuation, is not worthy of any hon.
House of Commons
member in this house. He is a man whose office is a symbol as well as the prop of the existence of this institution.
My final words are these. I am not misled by this resolution. It is not the Speaker who is the real target of this attack, it is the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the government that is sought after by this motion by the hon. member who now says, "Hear, hear". It is not Mr. Speaker, it is the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are after the government for what you did to our Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In their eager desire to try to force on the people an unnecessary election which will not resolve this question, some of my hon. friends opposite care not, Samsonlike, if they pull down the Speaker's chair and the pillars of parliament along with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even as the minister asked me a question the other night at the end of my speech, I am sure he will permit me to ask him one before he concludes. Is he not aware that it is precisely because of my regard for Mr. Speaker that what the government has done to him is so tragic?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked me this question because it clearly confirms what I said at the end of my speech, that it is not the Speaker whom hon. gentlemen opposite are challenging in this house, it is the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For what the government has done to Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No matter what the government has done it is no justification for pulling down the reputation and the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has just concluded an address in which I found it rather difficult to perceive any consistent argument. In concluding this speech he used a simile or metaphor in which he accused the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and, by inference, all the opposition of acting in a manner similar to that of Samson when he destroyed the temple by pulling down the pillars. If that simile has any application may I remind the minister and hon. members opposite that Samson's actions were brought about inevitably-the tragedy of Samson's actions was brought about-because he had been betrayed. He had been delivered into the hands of the iniquitous by Delilah.

House of Commons
Perhaps, there is some applicable simile here. The government has betrayed not only the Speaker but the House of Commons and parliament, and it was the government's betrayal of its responsibility and of its trust as equal custodians, with the others of us who sit here, of the rights of parliament, that had the result, if it has that result, of pulling the pillars and bringing the edifice crashing down. The responsibility rests with the government. But, sir, that is about the only part of the minister's speech that had any practical application to the situation now before us.
The minister tried to pretend-I will not say "tried to pretend"-the minister said that he somehow or other found this motion of censure almost repulsive, that there was something horrifying in the fact that it should have been moved. I can assure him and assure you, sir, if the assurance is necessary-I think indeed the statement has already been accepted by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Finance- that the motion was not moved lightly, nor was it moved except after there had been some opportunity for mature consideration. It is true that we base the necessity for the motion on the fact that the government has produced the situation which gives rise to the motion. But let me remind the ministers, particularly the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that all during the time of this steady deterioration of the relationship between the house and the Speaker, all during the course of this debate when consistently and time and time again precedent piled upon precedent, what we sincerely regarded-and I submit shall be able to demonstrate-as incorrect rulings were given and incorrect actions were taken;-when those actions were protested to the Speaker, when we sought to bring the relationship back on an even keel and to remind the Speaker and the government of the rights and privileges which it is the duty of the Speaker to protect-nevertheless, instead of our course succeeding in restoring the balance, it resulted on at least two occasions, and I believe it may have been on three, in the Speaker virtually challenging us to move a motion of censure. The Minister of Finance shakes his head.


Mr. Harris:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He will find absolute proof of what I say in Hansard.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not shake my head in either agreement or disagreement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it, then, that the minister accepts as a fact what I have said. It is a fact, as can be seen by consulting the record.

The Minister of Finance made a speech yesterday in which he, in effect, held out the olive branch and invited us to forget everything. He invited us, as it were, to say to ourselves, "Well, we moved this motion of censure in a fit of very strong emotion. Perhaps tve were justified in moving it under the turmoil of the emotion then prevailing, but now that it is all over perhaps the best thing to do would be to withdraw the motion and to forget the situation which gave rise to it".


Walter Edward Harris: I never said that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Finance says that he did not say that. I took it from his speech. I hope I am not being unfair. If he says that was not his intention I will accept it, but I do say-I am sure I am accurate here- that he hoped that when this was all over the old relationships would be resumed and that parliament would be able to carry on regardless of what had happened. Sir, I have some doubts as to whether that is possible. Certainly, all of us must try to carry on in the proper relationships that should prevail between government and opposition and to that end I certainly-and I am quite sure my colleagues will subscribe to this

shall try to do that. But I assure you, sir, that it is going to be extremely difficult because it is not going to be easy, indeed, it may not be possible, ever to wipe out the recollection of what was done to parliament by the government, and I do not see how it is going to be possible ever to restore the relationships to what they were before and to what it might be desirable to have them in this parliament, because the government that did that to parliament is the same government we still see here and will see here until this house is dissolved.
As I followed the Minister of Finance yesterday and as I read his speech in Hansard, I tried to understand the argument that he put forward to us, and I must confess that I have not been able to get any very clear interpretation of his argument. That may well be my fault. I know the minister is capable of putting forward a clear argument and does so on most occasions, even though we do not necessarily agree with him. On this occasion I find it difficult to draw out of his speech a clear argument as to what gave rise to the situation and what should be done about it. About the main argument I draw from his speech of yesterday is that under our system, with Speakers appointed and changed every parliament, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get an impartial Speaker and difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a situation where the Speaker's ruling would be viewed impartially.


Walter Edward Harris: I am afraid I did shake my head in negation of that one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says he did not say that, but I refer him to two passages on page 4810 of Hansard, which certainly come very close to saying that. In the first he said:
Let me ask hon. members opposite, is there any solution to dissatisfaction with a ruling of the Speaker except to put it to a vote of the house and to have a vote in which in all likelihood there would be a party division? So long as we have appeals that is bound to be the outcome in most eases.
Then he went on to say later on:
When hon. members opposite in this particular matter express regret that we shall not be able to come to a conclusion except on what they think is a partisan vote, let me point out that since I came to parliament, and long before that, appeals with respect to the Speaker's rulings were decided in that particular way. Now, it surely is a matter for consideration that if that is the case, one wonders whether any useful purpose is served except to continue to remind the Speaker that there are members in the house who disagree with him, and nothing much beyond that.
It did seem to me-and I may be wrong but this is my interpretation of the main import of the minister's argument-he may say this is not what he intended, and, if so, I accept it-that under our system it is difficult if not impossible, to get impartial rulings and to get rulings accepted as impartial and regarded as impartial by members on different sides of the house. I do not accept that view but I take it to be the minister's.


Walter Edward Harris: That is not my view.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Very well; the minister says that is not his view. I wish he would interpret his argument for us on some other occasion. But I do say that what he actually said, whether or not my view of his argument be correct, emphasizes the necessity of the government's being scrupulously careful in its relationship to the Speaker, being scrupulous not to place any burden on the Speaker which would make him less able to be impartial, not to enter into any relationship with him or to embark upon any course of conduct in the house that will make it difficult for the Speaker to be impartial. I submit, sir, that the government's course in the conduct of this debate particularly has not measured up to that standard of scrupulous conduct that is necessary.
The Minister of Finance did not deny yesterday having a meeting with the Speaker after ten o'clock on Thursday night. He denied the passing of a certain note but he did not deny-and I submit that no one over there can deny-that they made every effort and in fact succeeded in the course of this debate in influencing the Speaker in the judgments and decisions and rulings he was about to give.
House of Commons


Walter Edward Harris: May I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, to deny at this point that I at any time influenced the Speaker in any manner whatsoever in the course of the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, sir, I shall come in a few moments to some representations concerning what was seen in this house both by members of the press gallery and by hon. members, and I shall state what I myself saw in connection with a certain incident in the course of the debate. Before I get to that, however, let me deal with another matter the Minister of Finance dealt with in the course of his remarks. He said we should not blame the Speaker because the government imposed closure. I quite agree and I take it that the implication of the minister's remarks is that he felt it was possible that we in a spell of poor judgment, shall I say, were in fact without realizing it taking out our anger and our concern by a motion of censure on the Speaker, our anger having been aroused by the fact that the government introduced closure. Let me assure him, sir, that is not the case, as I have already pointed out.
Let me then return to the minister's argument. I agree with him that one should not blame the Speaker because the government imposed closure. No; but I do say that when closure is applied then the Speaker must be more careful than ever, more concerned than ever, to preserve the rights of the minority, because closure is of course the most violent, the most tremendous imposition that can be made on the ordinary rights of the minority. It is a method which is provided under the rules of the house although its application in this case, I still maintain, was not in accordance with the rules of the house; nevertheless, it is a method provided for. However, when it is invoked then the Speaker, the protector and the ultimate custodian of the rights of the house, must be more careful than ever to see that those rules which protect the minority even under closure are scrupulously observed; and unfortunately, sir, instead of that happening we saw the contrary.
After the application of closure by the government we saw a steady deterioration in the regard of the Chair for the rights of the minority which had become so much more important by virtue of the application of closure, and we saw-and the minister must accept what I say-what we believe to be a deterioration in the regard and the care of the Speaker for those rights under the pressure of the government.
I regret to say, as a matter of fact, that in the course of this debate the Chair as a

House of Commons
whole came into disrepute. We have one Speaker, it is true, but the Chair is shared by the three presiding officers-the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and deputy chairman-who normally rotate, and the pressure was such that in my view the Chair as a whole was brought into disrepute by the pressure applied by the government in the course of this debate, pressure applied as a result of its desire not only to invoke closure but to make closure as restrictive, and improperly restrictive, as it could possibly do.
There are three branches of the motion of censure before the house and I should like to deal with the central or middle branch first; that is, with the portion dealing with the action of Mr. Speaker in repeatedly refusing to allow members to address the house on occasions when the rules provide they have the right to be heard.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said there is not a shred of evidence of the improper conduct which is alleged against the Speaker or against the Chair, but just previous to that he had dismissed one of the very substantial pieces of evidence that we had brought; that is, the disregarding of the rights of members with respect to points of order and questions of privilege. The minister dismissed that as irrelevant, saying that the Speaker may have refused to see an occasional member but after all the Speaker is the final judge. But disregard of the rules is what we are complaining about, and how can the minister say, in view of the actions of the Chair in refusing to hear points of order and questions of privilege, that we have not brought evidence to substantiate the motion?
I would remind you, sir, that under standing order 17, and by virtue of the provisions of citation 110 of Beauchesne's third edition, it is clearly provided that a question of privilege or a point of order must be taken into consideration whenever it is raised. That is what is stated: "must be taken into consideration,"-and yet what did we see? Repeatedly we saw members disregarded on points of order and questions of privilege. As a matter of fact, it went so far that on one occasion the chairman stated that he deliberately disregarded members who rose, deliberately ignored them. You will find that at page 4560 of Hansard, where the deputy chairman admitted that he had deliberately ignored members who rose on points of order and questions of privilege. Why did he deliberately ignore them? He ignored them in order that he might put the question desired by the government before its propriety could be brought into question. Now, if that is not serving the purposes of the government then

I do not know the plain meaning of ordinary words; but that was done, notwithstanding the rule which made it an improper act on the part of the chairman.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member at one point mentioned the chairman and at another point mentioned the deputy chairman. My recollection is that I made no such statement. I wonder if the hon. member would clarify that for me?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. It is found at page 4560 of Hansard and it is made clear it was the deputy chairman who was concerned at that moment.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I suppose the hon. gentleman would not be willing to permit a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, if it is short.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is very short.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would be glad to have a speech from the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman contend the standing order he referred to gives any member a right to rise on a point of order when the chairman himself has the floor?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, Mr. Speaker, citation 110 reads:
Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the standing orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business, and may be raised at any time by any member, whether he has previously spoken or not.
Now, sir, in order that I might deal with the question raised by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) let me say that on the occasion to which I refer- and I know of other occasions-members rose before the chairman rose; practically simultaneously perhaps, but in my recollection, before the chairman rose. What is material, however, is what the chairman said. I am reading from page 4560:
I was not unaware that one or more members were on their feet desiring to raise either points of order or questions of privilege, which I do not know. I did not hear them; I did not see them, let there be no doubt about that. I knew they were there but I did not officially recognize them. I consider that I was right in my action.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You deliberately ignored them.


The Deputy Chairman:: I did not officially
recognize them. I consider-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Put it the straight way and say that you deliberately ignored them.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the hon. member prefers that expression I will not argue about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the Chairman is accepting that as a statement of his position, that he deliberately ignored members, how can we continue on that basis?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member
permit one more question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope to be finished before the end of my 40 minutes, and perhaps the minister will therefore defer his remarks.
Let me now go back to the first branch of the motion of censure, that the Speaker improperly reversed his own decision without notice and without giving any opportunity for discussion.


Mr. Tucker:: Does the hon. member suggest that these things can be raised during a division?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I heard the hon. gentleman's question, but these points of order and questions of privilege were not raised in the course of a division. We did try to raise some of them but many of them were not raised in the course of a division.
The chairman and Mr. Speaker on many occasions simply refused to recognize us or to hear members who were raising points of order or questions of privilege which it was their right to do. That refusal on the part of the Chair was in direct contravention of the rules and precedents of this house.
I said I was coming back to the first part of our motion of censure, that the Speaker improperly reversed his own decision without notice and without giving any opportunity for discussion. Standing order 34-this is the sort of evidence which the Minister of National Health and Welfare asked for-reads as follows:
Any member addressing the house, it called to order either by Mr. Speaker or on a point raised by another member, shall sit down while the point is being stated, after which he may explain.
On Friday morning, June 1, the Leader of the Opposition had the floor by virtue of standing order 7 and citation 216. The Speaker raised a point of order, which it was his right to do, but the effect of that point of order was to interrupt the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. While perhaps we should not, because we are members of the opposition, be overly assertive in stating the rights of the Leader of the Opposition, it is a fact which I think is recognized in their hearts by members and ministers opposite that the Leader of the Opposition occupies a peculiar place in the house because, as has been pointed out, he is an officer of this house. He occupies a position of peculiar priority with respect to his right to be heard. The Leader of the Opposition was interrupted by the Speaker, who raised a point of order, and the Leader of the Opposition indicated most clearly, as is shown by Hansard of June 1, his desire to speak to the point of order and also his desire to continue his speech once the point of 67509-308i
House of Commons
order had been settled. Yet notwithstanding the position just referred to, the Speaker refused to hear the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else on that point of order, in contravention of standing order 34 (1) which says that the hon. member shall sit down while the point is being stated, after which he may explain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Speaker had made a ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which he had no right to make at that point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That standing order gives a right to the member concerned to speak to the point of order before the ruling.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Speaker had made a ruling which the hon. member knows was not open to review and was not debatable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is my point, that the
Speaker made his ruling at that time improperly and in contravention of the rules of the house because the rules of the house say that when a point of order is raised the member who has the floor shall have the right to explain, in other words to speak to the point of order. He was denied that right and the Speaker, again seeking to advance the course of the government and under the influence of the terrific and terrible pressure which the government was exerting on him, improperly disregarded the rules of the house and reversed himself without giving an opportunity to anyone to discuss the point of order which he had raised.


Walter Edward Harris: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask just one question. The argument which he is advancing is somewhat new. Does the hon. member contend that, under standing order 34, when an hon. member, not the Speaker, is speaking and a point of order is raised, Mr. Speaker is obliged, after the point of order has been stated by the one seeking to make it, to hear then the member who has the floor? In other words, is it the contention of my hon. friend that this does not permit Mr. Speaker to do either one of two things, to say that the point of order is not well taken or that the point of order is well taken, without hearing any further argument?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the rule speaks for
itself; it states that if a member is interrupted by a point of order, he shall sit down while the point is being stated, after which he may explain. Perhaps I should read the whole thing:
Any member addressing the house, if called to order either by Mr. Speaker or on a point raised by another member, shall sit down while the point is being stated, after which he may explain.

House of Commons
What could be clearer, whether the point is raised by Mr. Speaker or an hon. member?


Walter Adam Tucker: Why do you not go on and read the rest?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have read it already.


Walter Adam Tucker: No, "Mr. Speaker may permit debate." He may do it, he does not have to do it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker)-I am not going to spend too much time on this point-is disregarding completely the first part of the standing order which says, "after which he may explain." Nothing could be clearer than that, that at least the member who is interrupted by the point of order may speak to the point of order if he wishes to do so. Mr. Speaker may then permit other debate subsequently, but he does not have to; but the rule says that at least the member who is interrupted may speak to it. I cannot see any other meaning that could be given to it. If my hon. friend disagrees with me, and as my time is running on, I would ask him to state his contrary arguments on a later occasion.
Dealing still with the first portion of our motion for censure, Mr. Speaker in an absolutely unheard of course of action then put a proposition to the house of his own motion. He tried to avoid having it described as a motion because Mr. Speaker realized he should not make a motion. He did in fact let his tongue slip in view of the tremendous pressure he was under and when it was actually being put he said, "Those in favour of this motion." That was corrected next day on a question of privilege.
But the rules of debate have come down to us from antiquity and they establish-I should not think that this would require any argument-that there can be nothing before the house for decision by way of a vote unless it is put in the form of a motion. How can you get a question before the house for decision except by way of a motion? The fact that the Speaker did not call it a motion but rather called it a proposition does not alter its basic nature. Mr. Speaker was not only improper in raising the matter himself but he put it forward at an improper time and in an improper manner because standing order 43 says:
All motions shall be In writing, and seconded, before being debated or put from the chair.
The motion of the Speaker did not even have a seconder, nor was it in writing. Furthermore, standing orders 41 and 42 provide that such a motion must have 48 hours' notice unless unanimous consent is obtained to put it forthwith without notice. In addition,

citation 136 of Beauchesne's third edition makes it clear, and I shall repeat it, that:
All motions referring to the business of the house should be introduced by the leader of the house.
This extraordinary proposition certainly related to the business of the house. It suggested that we wipe a whole day from our records. Here then we had the extraordinary, unprecedented and tragic situation that the Speaker rushed to the rescue of the government under pressure of such a nature that he substituted himself for the government leader in the house in advancing government business through the house.
Now, sir, I come to the third subparagraph of our motion of censure, which of course is the most important. The Speaker is accused of subordinating the rights of the house to the will of the government. I think it would be equally correct to say that the Speaker is subject to censure for having permitted the rights of the house to be subordinated to the will of the government, because that is what happened. The government imposed its will, and Mr. Speaker, no more than the others who from time to time occupied the chair in the course of this debate, was humanly not able to stand up to the pressure imposed upon him. I find it difficult to criticize him for that. I find it difficult to believe that there would be any ordinary human being, subject to the ordinary human emotions and temptations and frailties, who could withstand the pressure that this government put on this Speaker under the circumstances. But, sir, the fact that the happening may be pitiful or tragic, whichever way you like to look at it, cannot blind us to the fact that it happened, and we must record our disapproval of the happening and our censure of what happened.
But the main responsibility still rests with the government, and of course this situation arose because of the government's determination to ram this bill through and to ram this closure through and to use the most improper, violent and vicious form of closure. We have heard some discussion of closure before, but I think it is necessary to refer to it briefly again. I think it is desirable that the record should be cleared up and that the misinterpretations and distortions placed by the government on closure in the British house should be removed. We have heard ad nauseam about the number of times that closure is used in the British house and the suggestion made that it is a normal thing over there and that it is the same sort of closure as is used here, and therefore we are absurd when we protest about the use of closure four times in one session; but the British closure is entirely different.


Walter Edward Harris: I said that when I spoke.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are about the only one who did, and you said it very sotto voce. The British closure is entirely different. The British closure is what we know as the previous question, and even that takes a slightly different form from our previous question. It is true that the previous question is used over there on frequent occasions. It is true, as the Minister of Finance said, that it may be invoked in the middle of the afternoon by any member of the house, but, sir, there are these two safeguards: first, that it shall not be put if the Speaker thinks it is an undue curtailment of debate and, second, it requires the support of 100 in the house even then before it will be put.
But there is this third and most important difference which explains so clearly why it is used over there so frequently as a matter of course. The previous question is available to private members as a means of bringing about a vote on their own proposals then before the house. Here we do not have that course available. Here, if the government finds a private member's proposal embarrassing, then they can talk it out, and they do. Over there, in order to avoid that happening and in order to enable a private member to bring to a vote a proposal he puts forward, he has the device of getting one of his friends to move the previous question. Then, if the Speaker thinks that there has been adequate discussion, he puts it, because he thinks it is desirable to have a decision of the house on the matter. So the previous question applies to private legislation and private members' proposals in a way that simply does not prevail here and it is a device which helps private members get a decision on the propositions they put before the house.
That is the reason why closure is used 121 times a year, or whatever it may be, in England. To suggest that the situations are comparable is to distort the facts and to misrepresent them to the house and the country.


Walter Edward Harris: My hon. friend would not suggest that the government there does not use it as well as private members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I quite agree, but it has those important safeguards mentioned.


Walter Edward Harris: Quite so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think this should be pointed out, when we are talking about closure and about obstruction by the minority over here. It was just last session, on July 1, 1955, that the opposition in parliament accepted some very serious limitation on debate under the
House of Covimons
rules. The rules applying since then provide for limitation of debate to a far greater extent than they did just a year ago. We accepted them, after negotiation and compromise. We were not happy about them, but it was better than what we would have had forced on us if we had not. We accepted a limitation on the throne speech debate and a limitation on the budget debate and a limitation to six motions for going into supply. Yet the government is trying to say that the opposition refuses to accept any limitation on debate.
Now we come to the closure rule as it was applied by this government on this occasion. This, as I have said, is what started the deterioration in the relations between the house and the Chair. The invocation of the closure rule requires the most vigorous insistence by Mr. Speaker on the scrupulous adherence to the rules which protect the minority. Instead of that, we saw a steady whittling away under government pressure, of even those ordinary rules which protect the minority.
Now I come back to the question of the pressure brought by the government on the Chair, and the evidence of it. We saw, sitting here, what my hon. friend the member for London (Mr. Mitchell) referred to as that other pipe line, the pipe line between the house leader and the Chair. I well recall, sir, when I made the motion that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be now heard, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce was trying to get the floor to make his motion, that it caused consternation for a moment. I do not think I am putting it too srongly to say that there was momentary confusion on the government side.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It certainly confused me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The confusion, however, was rapidly resolved in his own mind by the Minister of Finance, who suddenly realized that, if he could get the Minister of Trade and Commerce to pass to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the papers containing the motion he then was going to move, and if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was given the floor by the chairman, their difficulties would be resolved. So, sir, the signals that were being made here by the Minister of Finance to the Chair, the nods, the smiles, the waves-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and the passing of papers back and forth between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were humorous to behold, or would have been if the situation itself were not so tragic.

House of Commons


John Whitney Pickersgill: How silly can you be?


Edmund Davie Fulton: We saw the papers being passed. How silly can you be?


Walter Edward Harris: Between the two ministers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, you yourself were in the chair on that occasion, and as I call on my colleagues over here to witness, you were at that moment so fully engaged that you missed the signal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You were completely engaged. It is understandable that you were concerned, and you were engaged in discussion with members on this side trying to recollect when the motion to get the floor had first been made, and you were not able to direct your attention over there, so the signal was missed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh! No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and you did not put the motion which you were being invited to put from over here, that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be heard. You ruled it out of order and then we saw the papers being passed back from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry but I must answer no. I have only two minutes left. I would ask the hon. member to defer his question. We saw the culmination of this thing on Friday morning when a decision arrived at the previous night-an important decision -was reversed in the most calculated, brutal and callous manner and under the most calculated, brutal and callous pressure. I do not want to leave my own words as the only witness for that belief. I should like to bring forward in evidence an article written by a press gallery correspondent who would not normally, I think, be described as pro-Conservative. Perhaps he would not normally be described as pro-government either. He may be one of those who are in the happy position of being truly impartial. But at least I am satisfied that I am safe in saying he is not pro-Conservative.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The questioners opposite did it again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wonder if I might at this time crave the indulgence of the house on a question of personal privilege since my name entered into the latter remarks

of the hon. member for Kamloops. I should like to assure hon. members that I am very conscious, as I stand here, of the fact that above my head is part of the wood from the old Westminster Hall and that, looking down on me, are generations of British constitutional history. I should like to say this. I am very conscious of my responsibility and I am most certainly not the recipient of signals from either side of the house. I have always tried to render my decisions in an impartial manner.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the time allotted to me included the time taken to answer questions?


Walter Edward Harris: We do not do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As a matter of fact, I purposely failed to look at the clock at 12.33.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, with reluctance I rise to take part in this filibuster-


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I interrupt my hon. friend?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Very well.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I had an understanding-if it was not a firm one, I thought it was-about the order of speakers today. We had not thought that my friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) would want to take part in this debate.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Walter Edward Harris: If I had not engaged myself to hon. gentlemen opposite to have a certain arrangement as to speakers, I would not have intervened.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It is quite all right.


Walter Edward Harris: I am quite prepared to let this go forward-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let him speak.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) had risen before the hon. member for Fort William rose and my attention was directed to him.


Walter Edward Harris: I think he had better be heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Mr. Zaplilny:: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I shall be glad to yield the floor to the hon. member tor Fort William.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No, thank you. I want to keep to the rules.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, several of the members on this side of the house who have taken part in this debate have expressed their distaste for doing so on the basis of personal friendship with the Speaker. I cannot claim to have an intimate friendship with the Speaker although our relations in this house and outside it have always been the best. As a preface to the remarks I wish to make today I should like to point out that I was one of those who, not so very long ago, rose in this house on a question of privilege in order to defend the Speaker when I considered that a report in one of the newspapers erroneously reported what he had said on an important occasion. I stand by every word I said at that time because the address which I heard him deliver on that occasion was, in my opinion, an excellent one and one which could not have been interpreted in any sense as being partisan. It was on that basis that I rose to defend Mr. Speaker and because we on this side of the house-as are hon. members, I am sure, on all sides of the house-are very jealous of the position of the Speaker with regard to impartiality. That is the reason why all of us, I am sure, take part in this debate; but we do not do so with any great alacrity because we know we are debating a motion which expresses lack of confidence in the Chair.
I wish first to draw attention to some of the remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). In my opinion the minister made an excellent address from a partisan point of view. But in a debate in which partisanship is the least desirable of all ingredients, I regret to say that his contribution was not of his usual best. He made quite a point of quoting with approval the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) when that member spoke earlier in this debate. I am not at this point going to express my own opinion of that particular contribution. I would rather call on an independent opinion, from a source which-because of the fact that the writer is not a member of this house-could probably be depended upon to be non-partisan. I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press, a newspaper which is not notoriously unfriendly to this government. Here is what they have to
House of Commons
say with regard to exactly the same point. I quote from their editorial:
The three party leaders-Mr. St. Laurent, Mr. Drew and Mr. Coldwell-are all to be congratulated for their handling on Monday of the debate concerning the Speaker. (Mr. Quelch. for the Social Credit party, made a nasty speech; but its inappropriateness to the occasion is merely an additional sign that the Social Credit philosophy is without understanding or care for the principles of parliamentary democracy.)


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: It was the truth he stated.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, my regret is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, by quoting with approval what is referred to in this editorial, has placed himself in the same category of being without understanding or care for the principles of parliamentary democracy, in the view of the Winnipeg Free Press.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that is true, so has Mr. Speaker Brand.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not think that remark is going to take away anything from what I have just said. I feel it is unfortunate that, in a situation of this kind, the government should be trying to leave the impression, in their so-called defence of the Speaker, that the members on the opposite side of the house are attacking the Speaker for partisan purposes. That is not the case.
In his address the minister said that the members on this side of the house-particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-had tried to get at the government through the Speaker. I suggest that the very reverse is the fact, namely that the government got at the opposition through the Speaker and that they are the ones who caused this whole mess. Not only will members of this house who were eyewitnesses to the whole of these events confirm that point of view. After all, the newspapers of this country, for the most part,- particularly on the question of procedure- are not taking a partisan point of view but are trying to call the shots as they see them. One has only to look through the newspapers these days to see that there has been a long procession of opinion in which it has been plainly stated that the government is responsible for having undermined the authority and the dignity of the Chair in the debate which has just ended.
Now, with the preponderance of evidence and opinion on the part of disinterested persons outside this house, I think it would have been better for the government to have admitted its mistake at this point and in that way to have salvaged the dignity and decorum of the Chair, rather than try to

House of Commons
place the responsibility on the other side of the house. I am quite happy to support what I have just said by a further quotation from the same newspaper. On the editorial page of the June 4 issue under the title, "Mr. Speaker", I find this:
That Mr. Speaker Beaudoin should be a casualty of the pipe line debate at Ottawa is more than a personal tragedy. It is also a political disaster.
Then they go on to say:
It is that which makes the personal tragedy of the censure motion on the Mr. Speaker so acute.


John Whitney Pickersgill: From what is the hon. gentleman reading?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: From an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of June 4, 1956. I continue:
Unfortunately, the painfulness of the tragedy does not lessen the hard reality of the political disaster. No opposition could have failed, in the circumstances of last Friday, to declare its loss of confidence in the Speaker and move censure on him.
Then farther on they say:
The government thought that a bulldozer was the right instrument to clear the path of the pipe line bill and learned too late that the result was in fact a chaos and bitterness in which probably no Speaker could achieve what parliament requires of him, because parliament is not meant to function this way.
Those are strong and unequivocal words. They do not beat about the bush. They place the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the government where, in my opinion, it belongs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why take it out on the Speaker then?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask the hon. gentleman who has just asked that question, what other way an opposition could register a protest under those circumstances?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By a vote of want of confidence in the government, of course.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That, I am afraid, would be much too late because the Speaker has already been crucified by the government.
It is not my intention to review the events which led up to this censure motion, the points of order and procedure that took place on last Thursday and Friday, because that has been thoroughly done in this debate. The experts on both sides of the house have already put that on the record and I wish merely to make this reference in that regard. If there is any doubt in the minds of members opposite as to the role that has been played by those who took an active part in the procedural debates in this house I would refer them to an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal a few days ago. The whole

editorial was devoted to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but out of respect for his modesty I will not quote it. One has only to read that editorial to realize that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre deserved better at the hands of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) than he received today. It is quite clear the hon. member was fighting for a principle that is vital to the functioning of this parliament and that has been recognized by the press right across this country, not by a press that is friendly to the party to which he belongs but by a press that recognizes genius and ability when it sees it.
The matter which I shall discuss particularly today is not a question of technicalities or procedure but rather more in a philosophical vein concerning what I regard to be the greatest error made by members sitting behind the government. What the government itself has done has been well laid on the record already. I contend that the rank and file of members who support the government have the primary responsibility because it is by their grace that the government holds power. It is their attitude to which I wish to draw the attention of the house, and which I think resulted in the tragedy we have seen.
I want to refer to the address made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George on May 29 in which he, while talking on a point of order, placed on the record the quotation from section 49 of the British North America Act. One sentence in the quotation is this:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices . . .
Now, he proceeded from there to argue that because of section 49 of the British North America Act the majority shall always decide. He fell into a trap that is often the result of over-simplicity. The same argument was taken up later by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and some other members supporting the government in which they insisted that it is the duty and the right of the majority to rule. If one were to follow that to its logical conclusion, we would have the most vicious type of one-party government in this country that could ever be envisaged. It would come, in my opinion, very close to the theory set out by Karl Marx in which he argued for the dictatorship of the proletariat on the basis of the fact there was more of the proletariat than any other class and therefore that class shall rule and the rights of the other people shall be taken away. In other words, it is rule by majority, by brute strength. We cannot subscribe, we cannot even entertain, such a thought in this parliament or in this country.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Certainly.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Does the hon. gentleman deny that section 49 of the British North America Act is in existence now?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: What the hon. member read into the record was the main part of section 49. I think that was the only part he did put on the record, that questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided on a majority of voices. I do not quite get the point of his question. Certainly, I do not deny the British North America Act is in existence. Unless the hon. member meant to ask something else, I am not quite sure how to answer. There is no debate about that. Section 49 of the British North America Act does exist and it does say what the hon. member put on the record. I am not questioning the accuracy of his quotation. All I am pointing out is what he and others who spoke as he did took that quotation to mean and the implication that carries with it.
The standing orders of this house are the British North America Act of the House of Commons. We are talking about minority rights. I am not particularly concerned about the minority in this House of Commons, which is the opposition. We are probably a less vulnerable minority than any in the country because in this house we are in a fluid position. The minority of today may be the majority of tomorrow. We are in a position to speak up for ourselves and make a protest when we see the rights of the minority in this house being trampled upon. Therefore, I am not particularly concerned as to what happens to members of the opposition in this House of Commons, but I am very much concerned about the philosophic acceptance of the philosophy, with all its implications, that the majority shall rule. If we accept that as a philosophy and apply it, particularly in a country such as ours where, as a matter of fact speaking from the point of view of our population in this country we are a nation of minorities, there is no telling what may happen.
With respect to racial origin, there is no group in this country that has a majority. We are a nation of minorities, and if we ever allow ourselves to follow the implications of the arguments presented by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Richardson), the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), and others who have spoken on that side of the house, that the majority shall rule, it is their right to do so, then we shall be heading for very serious trouble,
House of Commons
much more serious than that which we have witnessed in the House of Commons.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I would not like to interrupt the hon. member, I do not propose to do so unless he permits it. May I ask another question? Does the hon. member now propose, either in this session or in some early session, to move an amendment so that section 49 of the British North America Act will be changed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was never any question about that.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is serious in asking that question. I think the content of the question itself indicates that he is not expecting an answer.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I am.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Certainly, I have no intention of moving that that section of the act be taken out; in the first place because I see no reason for removing it, and in the second place because it is not this House of Commons that would amend the act, anyway, it would be the British House of Commons.


Mr. Carrick:: May I ask a question? What does the hon. member understand it to mean when section 49 says that questions shall be decided by a majority of voices? What does he understand that to mean?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am glad that question was asked, because it brings me exactly to the point I was about to make, Mr. Speaker, namely, that in the acceptance of a majority decision we must remember that it has to be applied and understood on the basis of rules and laws. If we applied the bare theory that the majority shall rule, without taking into consideration the rules under which they shall operate, or the laws of the land under which they shall operate, then we would find ourselves in an impossible position. Let me put it this way. Suppose we applied that theory in its bare implications to a court of law and said that the majority in court shall decide. Then, of course, we would not have justice. We operate in courts of law under certain laws and they are applied according to the way they are interpreted by the presiding judge. It is not a question of who has more lawyers in court; it is not a question of the jury being composed of 12 and the accused only one person and therefore he has automatically to lose the case. The laws are interpreted and adhered to strictly, and that is exactly what has to be done in this house. The standing orders of this house are the British North America Act of the House of Commons, and the moment the government

House of Commons
decides that the standing orders are a mere obstacle in its path and begins to find ways of circumventing those standing orders and the rules of this house, at that point it is abusing section 49 of the British North America Act and not using it. That is the point exactly. The rules of this house provide for certain procedures; they provide for the way in which legislation shall be brought forward step by step; they provide for points of order, questions of privilege and so on. I contend, sir, it is not the Speaker's responsibility nor his right to concern himself with the speed or effectiveness with which legislation passes through this house. That, I contend, is the responsibility of the members of this house. The Speaker's responsibility and function are strictly to interpret the rules as they are and to treat with fine impartiality all members on both sides of the house.
As the very controversial debate proceeded, one could perhaps draw this type of analogy from what happened. Here we were on a very controversial bill. The government was presenting its side of the argument and the opposition its side of the argument. It was something like a see-saw based on a fulcrum. At one point the government felt that the opposition perhaps was placing arguments that were more weighty and the see-saw began to come down in favour of the opposition. It was at that point that the Speaker moved the fulcrum and that is what started this whole controversy so far as the Speaker is concerned. At the point at which the seesaw was finely balanced, when the weight of the argument on each side was particularly heavy and the slightest shift of the fulcrum made a great difference as to the outcome of that controversy, at that point the Speaker shifted the fulcrum in favour of the government. I am not going to go into the question of why he did so; I am not going to go into all the details of how he did so. That is already on record. But the fact remains, and it is unanswerable, that the Speaker shifted the fulcrum in favour of the government at a very crucial point in the debate. Because that was done and because it was done contrary to the rules of this house, the opposition had no other recourse than to do what it eventually did, and therefore the motion is before the house.


Donald D. Carrick: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes.


Donald D. Carrick: If the Speaker honestly felt that he had made a mistake-


Mr. Dufresne:: What proves it?


Donald D. Carrick: Would you give me an opportunity to ask the question?


George Alexander Drew: Make your own speech.


Donald D. Carrick: I am speaking to the hon. member for Dauphin. If the Speaker felt that he had honestly made a mistake in not allowing the house to express its wishes on the appeal from the chairman's ruling, what was his duty to do except to try to restore the position?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He could have asked the leader of the house to move a motion.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Two reversals of decisions were made on Friday morning. One of them had to do with a motion, the other one with a point of order. I contend that in either case, if the Speaker felt that he had made an error the day before and felt that a different type of decision should have been made, his duty would have been to inform the house that on a future occasion, under the same circumstances, he would rule in a different way; but he was not justified, without notice and without an opportunity for hon. members of the opposition to discuss the matter, arbitrarily to rule that we go back to the position we were the day before, and to place before the house what he termed a proposition for which there is no precedent. On that basis and for these reasons I regretfully say I find that this censure motion is perfectly in order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Leader of the Opposition speaks now he will close the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I shall leave the chair.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, with the statements that I am about to make, the discussion of this motion will terminate and we shall then deal with this matter in one of two ways. I shall come back later to the ways in which this can be dealt with.
When I spoke first on the introduction of this motion I made it clear it was with the utmost reluctance and with very deep regret that we found it necessary to introduce a motion of this kind against a Speaker for whom,

as I said on that occasion, we have had not only respect but personal affection.
Since I presented that motion a number of speeches have been made; three have been made by members of the government. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has spoken, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has spoken, and today we heard from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). If there had been any uncertainty before about the necessity for a motion of this kind that uncertainty would have been removed by the nature of the speeches which have been made by the members of the government.
The Prime Minister washed his hands of all responsibility. Not only did he wash his hands of any personal responsibility but he imputed to the opposition motives which indeed would have made us unworthy to sit as members of this house if they had been true. I challenged the statements of the Prime Minister at that time but instead of withdrawing from his position he reemphasized it. The Prime Minister had this to say, as reported at page 4657 of Hansard:
This situation will appear to many, in spite of the elevated tone of the addresses made in the house this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and by the leader of the C.C.F. party, as being one more attempt to prevent the majority in parliament from reaching a point where it would be entitled to vote upon the propriety or otherwise of this controversial measure.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I must intervene on a question of privilege. I think it is a most improper suggestion that a matter brought forward in this way should in any way be suggested as a means of delaying debate in the pipe line proceedings.
I then went on to say:
I repudiate any suggestion of that kind and greatly regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would have thought of making such a suggestion.
To that the Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, not even the Prime Minister could avoid thinking that each and every move that has been made since the pipe-line resolution was first brought before the house was designed to prevent it from reaching a point where it might become a statute of the Canadian parliament.
That was the position taken by the Prime Minister. We were dealing with a most unusual situation. We were dealing with a situation in no way correctly interpreted by the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We were dealing with an unqualified decision by the Speaker a week ago Thursday night to accept a motion which he in fact had suggested in form and assisted in drafting; and then the following morning without notice, without authority, without precedent
House of Commons
of any kind, he rose in this place to say he had come to the conclusion that he had made a mistake.
Mr. Speaker, if there was any uncertainty about the decision the night before it was the duty of one member of the government, whoever it might be, to raise that question. The members of the government were not caught by surprise. It was apparent they knew what was going to be done; it was evident. It was equally evident when the organized applause started immediately upon the announcement by the Speaker of what he was doing. Had they not known they would not have realized the significance of the decision which had been made.


An hon. Member:: What do you think we are-dumbbells?


George Alexander Drew: It was not a decision merely to reverse the acceptance of a motion the night before on which debate had proceeded, it was a decision which was in keeping with the desire of the government to circumvent the rules of this house, a decision about which there was no surprise; a decision which, right or wrong, should never have been made except upon an application by a member of the government or someone on the other side and consideration by the Speaker of arguments from both sides as to the propriety of following such a course. This was no ordinary decision.
Then we had the Minister of Finance washing his hands of responsibility and making the unctuous suggestion that he had sought as no one else had to prevent the disturbances. The Minister of Finance now nods his head in support of that statement. The Minister of Finance sat here without a comment while the organized bedlam that is recorded in Hansard was carried forward by hon. members opposite largely under the direction of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill).


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


Mr. McCann:: Ridiculous.


George Alexander Drew: Hansard shows perfectly clearly the nature of the interjections, the frequency of the interjections and the kind of organized bedlam which went on under the benign approval of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Prudham:: After the bell had rung; after the vote was called.


Mr. Fleming:: It was immediate.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be diverted from the course of my remarks by ordinary interjections but I do not intend to overlook the interjection of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham). He said, "After the bell had rung".

House of Commons
No, it was not alter the bell had rung. It was immediately after the Speaker announced he was going to reverse his earlier decision that a bedlam of applause broke loose in this chamber. It came from men who knew what was going to happen.


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


An hon. Member:: Prearranged.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Finance had this to say, as reported at page 4683 of Hansard:
I am going to say something that is rather difficult for me to say under the circumstances. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. this afternoon said that all of us ought to regret what has happened, particularly what happened on Friday. I am going to agree with both of them. However, I hope that in expressing agreement in that sense I am not to be taken as having accepted any responsibility for it.
Oh, Mr. Speaker, those words will go down in Hansard as the words of a man who put before the house one of the most tawdry pretences that has ever been heard in this chamber. Men who sat here heard the bedlam raised by the supporters of the government without a word of objection; then the minister is quite ready to agree that others are responsible; but, oh, not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris). Listen to what he said, as reported on page 4684 of Hansard of June 4:
A week ago Thursday night I did what no other member who has spoken in this debate has done. I rose in my place and appealed to the followers on this side of the house to remain in a condition which would not excite any feelings in this house, and from that day to this they have done so.
Let anyone examine the pages of Hansard between the Thursday night to which he refers in the previous week and the time at which he spoke and the answer will be found to a sanctimonious statement of that kind, completely denied by the record for all time.
This subject was dealt with further today by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I would have hoped that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have acted more in keeping with the reputation which he has deserved of respecting accuracy and the responsibilities of this house. Again from him we heard a distortion of the record. That is a shameful thing as it stands permanently embedded in Hansard for years to come. He said:
I am not misled by this resolution.
No, he was not misled by the resolution. Then, even worse, he went on to say: "In their eager desire to try to force on the people an unnecessary election which will not resolve this question, some of my hon. friends opposite care not, Samsonlike, if they pull

down the Speaker's chair and the pillars of parliament along with it."
The simile may not have been inappropriate. It will be recalled that the temple which was torn down was a temple of evil men. It was a temple of the Philistines, not a temple of freedom like this House of Commons. It may be worth recalling also that Samson in that ultimate act of despair used his strength to relieve himself from the chains which bound him, Yes, the simile may not have been inappropriate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He was defeated too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He destroyed his enemies.


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of National Health and Welfare says, "He was defeated too." In that single remark the Minister of National Health and Welfare condemns this whole government. That is his estimate of their attitude toward this situation; it was not whether Samson was rightly chained or not; the people that had the power, according to him, had the right, and the man who tore down the evil things, according to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, lost too. I do not believe there is one hon. member on this side of the house who has been expressing his opinion in regard to this unhappy incident who would not far rather lose in a decent and honourable cause than win by the sheer use of force to which the government has appealed on this occasion.
The government has been poorly served by those who have sought to divert attention from the issue before us. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) said that I had tried to argue in regard to the Speaker's ruling; that is not so. I had tried to be heard on a point of order, to point out that it was not the role of the Speaker to become counsel for the government and judge as well. I was denied a hearing, and so were other hon. members who sought to be heard.
Oh, we are told that when the Speaker is on his feet others cannot rise. That statement can only be made by those who do not know our rules or have not followed the proceedings in this house. Points of order are frequently raised while the Speaker is standing. If he deems it appropriate the Speaker resumes his seat and permits the point of order or the question of privilege, as the case may be, to be heard.
Unless it were possible for members to rise while the Speaker is standing, particularly when he is making some comment about the proceedings in this house, it would not be possible for any effective discussion of the rules of this house, and the procedure in this house, and the rights of members, to

take place. Certainly they have a right to rise while the Speaker is standing. It is true that they have not the right to rise to engage in an argument with the Speaker while he is standing. Nevertheless there is not an hon. member of this government or an hon. member opposite who has taken any part in the legitimate and proper debates of this house who has not seen many occasions where points of order or questions of privilege could be raised only by the person rising while the Speaker was standing. In that way the member indicates his intention to state the question -when the Speaker resumes his seat.
Let it be said that on most occasions in the past the Speaker has acceded without question to the demand to be heard on a point of order or a question of privilege. It was only on this black Friday that has just passed, when he had taken the unprecedented course first of all in acting on behalf of the government in presenting a proposal and second in passing judgment without permitting hon. members to be heard, that he denied to any hon. member in this house the right to be heard. In an affront, not to members of parliament but to the people of Canada, he rang a bell which could have been the death knell of freedom unless there had been members here who were prepared to stand up for their rights on that occasion.
As we all know, every decision of that kind becomes a precedent embedded in the records. What a dreadful precedent to have established on this occasion. The Minister of Finance, referring to my statement that there had been newspaper criticism outside of this house before it arose here, professed his ignorance of any such criticism. Within the rules of this house, it is not possible for me to use terms appropriate to such a statement. I cannot believe that the minister does not read the newspapers. I cannot believe that he was unaware of criticism which had been levelled against the Speaker and the Chairman for conduct which had already aroused the indignation of certain members of the government as well.
The minister sought to convey the impression that if there had been criticism outside it was criticism prompted by what was said by the members of the opposition. Let him point to a single case where that criticism had been directed to the subject of the widespread criticism that was coming from outside because of the manner in which debates were being conducted here under the lengthy admonitions of the Speaker, under the unnecessary repetition of precedents to support his position at times when no member of the government had raised any question at all. It was then that the criticism came from
8, 1956	4863
House of Commons
outside, not from here. Even then we were prepared to hope that, as so often happens, this advice from outside might have its effect. Unfortunately, the Speaker did not heed the warnings.
The criticism that was made was not merely criticism as to the long and extraordinary statements being made by the Speaker; it was due to the fact that the Speaker was substituting himself for the government in raising issues which had not even been brought forward. That was the situation which finally came to a head.
Then the Minister of Finance has sought to interpret the statements made a week ago Thursday night as statements indicating that the Speaker was reserving his decision in regard to the admission of a motion which he himself had helped to frame and upon which debate had already taken place. There was no suggestion of any such thing. He had accepted the motion; he had emphasized the fact that before this house met he had already examined and carefully read one of the letters referred to by the hon. member for Nanaimo, who presented the motion, and that in his opinion this was not only a matter of privilege but of serious privilege. It was upon that basis that he accepted the motion.
May I make it clear? We are not speaking here about dissatisfaction with the Speaker's ruling. We are talking about the way in which the ruling was made. As I said in the opening remarks in support of this motion, we certainly would not present a motion of this kind simply because of what we thought had been a mistake on the part of the Speaker. What we were directing our criticism to was the way in which the Speaker made this ruling, and his conduct on Friday morning. That is the point that is before the house.
I know that it is not appropriate to quote newspaper editorials by way of argument in a manner that reflects upon the house. I would point out, however, that the Prime Minister and others who have spoken have used editorials, and to that extent I would certainly question the propriety of any denial at this time of the right to read an editorial or article relating to this subject. However, I shall qualify what I intend to say still more. I propose to read certain things that have appeared in the press, not as arguments but as an indication of what the impression is upon the minds of experienced observers. That is something which surely cannot be a matter which is of no concern to the members of this house.
Already reference has been made to an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press on Monday, June 4. I shall not repeat

House of Commons
that part which has already been read into the record. Whatever else may be said about the Winnipeg Free Press, it would not in the ordinary course of events be regarded as a newspaper whose leanings had been unduly toward the opposition. I should like to read that editorial simply to indicate what the attitude of responsible observers is in relation to what has taken place in this house, because, as I have already pointed out on an earlier occasion, this is the house of the people, and it is the people's rights that are at issue here. We as individuals are merely the servants of all those millions of Canadians whom collectively we represent on both sides of this house. In an editorial headed "Mr. Speaker", this is what the Winnipeg Free Press had to say on that occasion:
That Mr. Speaker Beaudoin should be a casualty of the pipe-line debate at Ottawa is more than a personal tragedy. It is also a political disaster.
The Canadian House of Commons has had few Speakers who have worked as hard and commanded such general respect as Mr. Beaudoin. The proper measure of him can be taken by asking this question: under how many Speakers would the House of Commons have got as far as it has, in the unprecedented circumstances of the pipeline debate, before the opposition was stirred to censure the Speaker? What if Mr. Beaudoin had not started out with a great fund of goodwill? What if the opposition had not previously learned to respect both his impartiality and his great knowledge of the rules and precedents of parliament? The government's handling of the pipe-line bill could readily have created yet more chaos and bitterness, even sooner in the parliamentary proceedings, than it has.
Respect for the Speaker is an essential lubricating oil in the functioning of parliament. When the machine is running so hot it is bound to burn some of that oil. The measure of Mr. Beaudoin's quality is that the asset was so large and survived rapid consumption for as long as it did.
It is that which makes the personal tragedy of the censure motion of the Speaker so acute. Unfortunately, the painfulness of the tragedy does not lessen the hard reality of the political disaster No opposition could have failed in the circumstances of last Friday, to declare its loss of confidence in the Speaker and move censure on him.
Then I omit the part that has already been read into the record and I continue reading from the same editorial:
Whether the Speaker was right or wrong in his first decision is open to prolonged discussion, of little public interest. But it is perfectly plain that, by changing his mind over night, so greatly to the government's advantage, the Speaker becomes exposed to opposition suspicion of having yielded to government pressure. The opposition is fully entitled to act on the basis that its confidence in the Speaker's impartiality is completely destroyed. And without that confidence, the normal proceedings of parliament are impossible.
Mr. Beaudoin in this is the unhappy victim of circumstances beyond his control. The government thought that a bulldozer was the right instrument to clear the path of the pipe line bill and learned too late that the result was in fact

a chaos and bitterness in which probably no Speaker could achieve what parliament requires of him, because parliament is not meant to function this way.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I wish just to refer to another article which is not an editorial. It is an article by a man who is generally regarded as one of the most competent reporters and observers associated with any newspaper in Canada. I refer to Mr. I. Norman Smith, whose rewards for the quality of his reporting have won for him an enviable reputation not only in the newspaper field but in the sphere of letters as well. Let me read just a short quotation from what he said in an article to which reference has already been made and which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of June 4 under the title "They Tore Up a Part of My National Pride". Let is be remembered that the writer of this article was writing not as an editorial writer detached from the scene but as a reporter who had been in parliament and who was in the House of Commons at the time the events in question occurred. I quote from that article:
Isn't it kinder to say that House Leader Harris was ignorant of what he was doing when several times he was so lacking in taste as to go up to the Speaker's chair and speak intently with that officer whose impartiality is anciently unapproachable? The Speaker and his rulings were under fire and question during all this time. Perhaps Mr. Harris wasn't giving him instructions; perhaps he was just asking where he was going for Christmas.
But surely Mr. Harris must have been ignorant of the fact that for him to discuss Christmas or anything else with the Speaker at that particular time was to sully the Speaker and parliament and himself beyond the belief of any citizen sensitive to what parliamentary democracy means? "Get out of there!" cried out a Conservative member, but Mr. Harris saw no wrong and felt no discomfort-a state explained only by ignorance of a fairly high order, for instinct and institution were alike revolted.
I hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) laughing. A man who had that indictment presented by one of the most competent reporters in this country who sat in the gallery and saw what happened here is strangely unworthy of his responsibilities in this house if he can laugh at such an indictment.
Mr. Speaker, there was no question about the fact that messages were being passed. There was not an hon. member who did not see them; not one. There was not an hon. member who was not conscious of the atmosphere on Thursday night. There certainly was not an hon. member on Friday morning who was not conscious that it was the will of the government which had prevailed.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to read also the words of another reporter. Again this is not an

editorial. It is from a report by a man who once again can be properly said not to have been unduly influenced by his close association with the Conservative party. This is an article by Mr. Douglas Leiterman which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, June 2, under the title "An Axe Flailing at the Root of Human Rights". Mr. Leiterman is a member of the press gallery who had observed what took place here in this house, with an opportunity to see what took place which is perhaps not afforded to all hon. members. Let me quote from that report:
For you were witnessing not only the debasement of a proud and accomplished Speaker. Not only the irresponsibility of a sorely-tried opposition. Not only the indecent haste of a thoughtless government. You were witnessing the axe flailing at the root of human rights, and fear wrapped around you as you watched.
Mr. Speaker Beaudoin had ruled honestly, according to his lights, the night before. The opposition had outmanoeuvred him, so resourcefully and so successfully that the pipe line bill was dangerously delayed.
What happened, over night, no one will ever know. But from the opening Friday morning Mr. Speaker behaved like a man under the gun.
Then I pass over some part of the report and read this:
Then the whirlwind. The Speaker, in carefully memorized phrases, proposed that all Thursday night's proceedings be wiped out; that the house go back to where it was at 5.15 p.m. Thursday. Why? Because he had made a "serious mistake" in everything he had done after that hour. The house was thunderstruck. It was a preposterous proposition. "Why not", demanded a member, "go back to last week, or last year?"
Beaudoin wavered but Finance Minister Harris, alarmed at the Speaker's floundering, admonished him to get on with it. Stiffen your back, Rene, he said in effect. The Speaker stiffened.
Then I pass on to the closing paragraphs of this report written by Mr. Leiterman:
What mattered was not that it was unfair, but that it was unjust, and unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker followed the rules until they got in the government's way. Then, he threw the rule book in the Ottawa river and proclaimed: "Let the house decide". That could only mean, "let the government decide", since the government controls the house. The rules, whose purpose is to protect the rights of parliament, ceased to protect. The oligarchy could do what it would-and it did.
Mr. Speaker, I have read those extracts from three highly responsible newspapers written by very responsible men who are highly trained observers. I did so, as I said before, so that the hon. members in this house might be fully aware of what the impression is outside of this house. Others could be read as well, equally critical-


Mr. Lesage:: Or to the contrary.


George Alexander Drew: -and equally damaging to the relationship between the Speaker and the
House of Commons
house, but above all equally revealing as to the relationship between the Speaker and the government.
In his solemn oath of office the Speaker has sworn to serve parliament, to serve all the members. It is upon that clear duty that our whole concept of the parliamentary system has grown through the centuries as a result of trial and error. Break that sense of service to the whole house and you not only deny the possibility of the Speaker properly performing his duties, but you shatter the relationship between the house and the Speaker without which orderly debate cannot proceed.
The Minister of Finance made much of the fact that there had been numerous appeals against this Speaker's rulings in recent days. He made much of the fact that there had been few appeals on earlier occasions. Yes, it is true. The reason for those appeals was because-


Jean Lesage: To kill time.


George Alexander Drew: -it was only in those recent weeks that it became apparent that Mr. Speaker was not accepting his responsibility to the whole house but that the government was imposing its will to meet a deadline imposed by strangers to this house. What right was it of theirs what date saw the termination of a legitimate discussion on a subject proclaimed by the government itself as one of the most important ever to come before this house? What right was it of anyone outside of this house to impose terms and tell us when we must conclude our proper discussions of the affairs of the people of Canada? The Speaker's rulings were appealed because the Speaker was no longer making rulings consistent with the rules presented only last year by a committee of which he had been chairman. The words of these rules, clear words not open to misinterpretation, were twisted and distorted in their meaning. Again, there might have been criticism but not condemnation of this man if the Speaker had merely made a mistake in the interpretation of these rules.
The significant thing was that the .misinterpretation of clear words, in English and in French, contained in those rules approved by this house served in every case the interests of the government in their demand that, no matter what happened, debate be terminated by a date that suited a United States controlled company about whose welfare they were so greatly concerned.
Today we heard a speech from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Amongst other things he said the motion had not the slightest justification for presentation.

House of Commons
I have already read a statement made by a man who certainly would not be accused of any known sympathy for the Conservative party, except in this particular instance. May I at this point say that every Canadian should be proud of what has been said by the newspapers which have been openly associated with the Liberal party for many years. Never before in this country's history have we seen greater tribute to the real freedom of the press than has been expressed in relation to the incidents which have occurred in this house. We said at the outset of this debate that one of the reasons that we sought full opportunity to debate the measure that was before us in an orderly, unhampered way, was that one of the main functions of debate in this house was to shape public opinion outside through the thoughts and information gained from the press which reports what we do here.
We saw the valuable consequences of that relationship between the press and the public in the defence production debate last year. We saw the government finally bow, and graciously I concede, to the overwhelming demand of the people of Canada when they expressed opinions which were shaped and formed and reached by an examination of what they read in the press or heard over that other great medium of information, the radio. That was after weeks of debate. Unless every hon. member opposite felt that the Prime Minister had been wrong when he rose on the last day of that long debate last year and indicated what the government intended to do, then hon. members opposite should have been the first to say, "We wish to retain that evidence of democracy in action which we saw clearly expressed here in this house last year after the public had become informed as to what the facts actually were." The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) quoted a very great Speaker of the British House of Commons, Mr. Speaker Brand, seeking to justify the attitude of the Speaker in this house in refusing to hear anyone in regard to proceedings which he had undertaken on his own initiative, or rather on his own initiative so far as this house was concerned. The Minister of National Health and Welfare quoted Mr. Speaker Brand in this way: "I shall be justified if I refuse to call upon any more members to speak." What a difference, Mr. Speaker, what a difference between the two illustrations. There had been extended debate in the case when Mr. Speaker Brand made this decision; exercising the right he had as Speaker, he indicated he felt that he had heard enough in the debates that had already taken place in regard to the point of order that had been raised. It was only then, after hearing many speakers, that he said: "I shall be justified if I refuse to call 
upon any more members to speak." In this case, these words are not applicable. The Speaker, with no motion before him, with no pretence of a motion, because he cannot make a motion, and with no suggestion of a debate, because he is not allowed to participate in debate, made a decision contrary to every precedent and then refused, not to hear any more members, but to hear any members at all even to the extent of a single word.
This was no ordinary refusal. It was the effect of what he did that must be examined in considering the motion now before us. The effect of what he did was to remove the first roadblock in the way of the government's steamroller. There was still another. The other roadblock related to proceedings which had taken place between 5.15 of the day before and the time we met on Friday morning. It was necessary to remove that second roadblock. Then, the Speaker proceeded with something that has no precedent here or in any other parliamentary institution. Not a word had been said by any member of the government suggesting that this be done on that Friday morning. Nevertheless, the Speaker rose and said that he was going to put a proposal before us. That proposal was to strike out, for all practical purposes, everything that had happened between 5.15 on Thursday and the time we met on Friday morning. As it has been aptly described in the press, it became the day that never was. We then reverted by an unprecedented procedure to 5.15 the day before. Yes, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said, we can all make mistakes; we all do- that is, except the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. We all make mistakes. There would have been no serious objection if the Speaker had made a mistake. It was not the fact that there had been a mistake; it was the obvious purpose of that unprecedented action which we could not ignore, as has been so properly pointed out by the Winnipeg Free Press.
We would be derelict in our duty as members of the opposition, Mr. Speaker-might I go further and say hon. members opposite are derelict in their duty if they are unwilling to recognize the need for the restoration of the authority, the traditions and the responsibility of this house in a manner in keeping with the seriousness of what occurred. By that weird device for which there is to be found nowhere in any record even the pretence of a precedent, the second road block was removed and the steamroller moved on to its stated objective and the time limit set by those outside this house.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in quoting Mr. Speaker Brand, said, "If

that is not the most classical justification of the course followed by the Speaker I do not know where it could be found." There is not even the slightest hint of a similarity; there is not even the slightest hint of a suggestion. When the Speaker did raise the question of delay on Thursday night it was not delay- and the minister knows it-in regard to a ruling on the motion. He sought delay so that he could prepare a statement as to his position in relation to the example of what he regarded as serious prejudice. He had made his finding. He had not merely stated that he had read the letter; he said that it was a question of privilege and a most serious question of privilege. I am not going to argue as to whether he was right or wrong the night before. As has been pointed out, that is utterly unimportant. He had made his decision. The house had become seized of this matter and he had no right of any kind to withdraw that from the house. Certainly, he had no right to do so without hon. members being in a position to argue as to the merits of that course. It was not a case of arguing with the ruling; it was a case of dealing in appropriate terms with our rights. That, the Speaker refused. I repeat, the refusal must be examined in relation to its effect and not merely as an ordinary mistake.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, for some reason in regard to which I am not clear, and I fancy no hon. member in this house is very clear about it, sought to convey the impression that I had introduced closure in the Ontario legislature. I moved the previous question. The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows perfectly well that the previous question has been moved frequently in this house. It was moved by the Minister of Finance last year in the defence production debate.
The Minister of Finance will recall that on that occasion there were a great many speeches after that motion had been put. The previous question does not deny debate; the previous question is merely a devise to prevent debate on other matters coming before the house before a vote is taken, that is all, and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are well aware of that affect. The previous question permits debate to proceed in its normal manner. The previous question permits debates of the full length permitted by the rules of this house, not the limited debates of 20 minutes which are imposed under the closure motion.
Yes, I moved the previous question in Ontario; but the Minister of National Health and Welfare did not have to go to Ontario. I have moved the previous question here in
House of Commons
this house; so have ministers of the crown on a number of occasions. It is something very different; and if that is the best evidence of any inconsistency on our part I would suggest that a little more research be done on this question.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare implied that there was something shameful about bringing this extraordinary situation to the attention of the house. These were the minister's words, or certainly the context of his words: What is shameful is that the members of this house will be called upon to make a decision. Well, I have already suggested to the Prime Minister a way by which he can avoid that decision which the Minister of National Health and Welfare regards as shameful. What is shameful about dealing with the destruction of the rules and traditions and practices and the established procedure of this house?
The Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to my statement that there had been criticism outside. He said that I had indicated there had been rumblings long before the debate arose. Yes, I am sure the minister is well aware of the criticism to which I referred. That was not related directly to any criticism in this house; it was related to the opinion of competent observers with regard to the proceedings which had taken place here, something that is not only the right but the duty of the press of this country, a free land.
Then the Minister of National Health and Welfare used words that should not be overlooked. He said that he did not know what standard of fairness prompted this course of slander by smear. If he wants to speak about shame, then let me say that is one of the most shameful statements I have ever heard in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit me to point out I had clearly said that did not apply to the hon. gentleman who is now speaking. There was nothing in his speech that suggested impropriety. I was directing my remarks at that moment to the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The words of the Leader of the Opposition apply.


George Alexander Drew: I will simply say I believe the words I have just used apply with equal force if the minister's remarks were directed to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has justified the high regard of the people of Canada for the fight he has waged for the rights of this house during the past three weeks.

House of Commons
The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that the very wording of the resolution is justification for not accepting it. The wording in the simplest and most moderate form describes exactly what took place here in this house last Friday, as the record will unfortunately show for just as long as the Hansard records of this house are read.
The minister asked, is reversal of a decision by the Speaker justification for such a motion? Is refusal to hear the members justification for this motion? No, and we never suggested that. What we have said and what I say now is that it was the reversal of a decision on his own initiative and without any precedent while at the same time refusing to hear any member of the opposition with regard to what he was doing. That is what we have said and that is what I say now.
The situation now before us is one which can be dealt with by this house. It is also one which can be dealt with by the government. This was no mere question of mistake. I said at the very outset we would never have thought of a motion of this kind that dealt only with a mistake in a ruling. I have indicated what was the impression of experienced reporters who observed this scene clearly, after they had witnessed the events of a week ago Thursday night and last Friday morning.
This is something that goes to the root of our continuing ability as members of a parliament with a government and an opposition. This is something that goes to the root of our ability to serve the people of Canada effectively here in this chamber. There can be a vote on a strictly partisan basis, as was indicated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not agree with him in that assessment. I do not agree this will be on a strictly partisan basis. I believe, however, it will be a vote which if it is taken, will divide this house in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the relationship of the Speaker to the house if he is to serve the house as a whole.
As a minority we are not claiming the right or the ability to impose our will upon the government; nevertheless, in the most earnest terms I could employ I sought at the time I introduced this motion to impress upon the Prime Minister that something ugly has come into this house, that the relationship of hon. members to each other, the relationship of hon. members to the Chair, and the traditions, decency and standards of this house are all affected by what has occurred. I said then and I repeat now as I close these remarks that this parliament cannot be the same again. A government which was


prepared to do what was done at the close of this house a week ago last Thursday and the opening on Friday morning, a government which is prepared to defend this action with the specious arguments we have heard, cannot again command that measure of confidence in this house which a government should command no matter what party may form it.
There will not again be a return to that easy relationship and mutual understanding which with all our differences is essential to the performance of our duties, until the people of Canada, whose house this is, have an opportunity to choose the members, which will be done with the full knowledge by those people of all that has occurred in this house. If that were done a new parliament might well start in with that relationship which is so necessary. What has happened unfortunately cannot be forgotten. A new parliament, however, need not be hampered by the unhappy precedents which have been established in these past few days.
The Prime Minister has it within his power to restore the dignity of parliament by assuring the house now that at an appropriate time which will permit him to attend the conference in London and to carry out the necessary duties of government in the meantime, he will dissolve this house and seek from the people a mandate for a new parliament to bring parliament itself into harmony with the will of the people. If the Prime Minister would do that then I am sure there would be ready acceptance on this side of the proposal that this debate be adjourned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to draw attention to it, but when I hear laughter-


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: On your own side.


George Alexander Drew: -at a statement of that kind, may I say to the hon. member who sits on my own side that it was not from my own side of the house but from Liberals who sit to our right.


An hon. Member:: Behind you.


An hon. Member:: From the minister.


George Alexander Drew: And from a minister as well.


Jean Lesage: I did not laugh.


George Alexander Drew: When we hear laughter of that kind, then we know just how much the supporters of this government have yet come to realize the extent to which the traditions of parliament have been injured and wounded and damaged by what has occurred here in this house.

The Prime Minister has a course open to him which will make it possible for the government to fully carry out its responsibilities. What has happened is the responsibility of the government. It is the government in the course it has followed that has led by one inevitable step after another to this unhappy position. Let the government deal with this in the way it should. In that way it can avoid the necessity of a division upon this motion, but not otherwise.
I hope the government will accept its responsibilities in a sense of duty to the people of Canada, whose servants we are, and to future generations of Canadians whose happiness, whose opportunities, and whose welfare will be determined by what we do here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I waited until the hon. gentleman had finished, as Your Honour has directed, in order to draw attention to a question of privilege which he raised almost at the beginning of his remarks. As I apprehended his words, he said that at the opening of the session on June 1, when Your Honour made a ruling, I had led this house in bedlam, as would be shown from the records of Hansard. I have examined Hansard for June 1 and the first time my name occurs in it is at page 4546 where I answered a question on the orders of the day after the incident to which the hon. gentleman refers had taken place.
What is more, the hon. gentleman has presumed to quote-I do not question his right to do it in the circumstances of this debate- three distinguished journalists-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to support his charge.


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is an allegation made against me personally and it seems to me that I should have an equal right to quote a brief extract from another distinguished journalist, Mr. Norman M. MacLeod.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Speaker is on his feet.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may say that what was alleged by the Leader of the Opposition about his conduct is not true, but I do not think he can go beyond that to prove other statements emanating from outside this house
House of Commons
that some of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are not founded on fact. I do not think he can go beyond the words necessary to state that what the Leader of the Opposition has said about him is not correct. See standing order 37.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I state that what the Leader of the Opposition stated about my conduct is not correct. It was contrary to the truth. I was horrified by what happened.


Mr. Casselman:: You should sit on this side and watch yourself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who is ill. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. F. T. Fairey (for Mr. Harrison) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on May 28, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
That the name of Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace) be substituted for that of Mr. Brooks; and That the name of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) be substituted for that of Mr. Coldwell, on the special committee on research.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, because we have previously indicated that we did not agree with this principle that ministers should be members of the committee on estimates when their departmental estimates are under consideration, I would ask that this motion be regarded as carried on division with respect to the name of Mr. Gregg.


Mr. Weir:: Very good.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.



POST OFFICE ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the first reading of Bill No. 351 (from the Senate), to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS ACT


William Gilbert Weir: That the name of Mr. Gillis be substituted for that of Mr. Knight; and That the name of Mr. Barnett be substituted for that of Mr. Zaplitny; and That the name of Mr. Gregg be substituted for that of Mr. McCann; and That the name of Mr. Blanchette be substituted for that of Mr. Dupuis; and That the name of Mr. Cannon be substituted for that of Mr. Macnaughton; and That the name of Mr. Hollingworth be substituted for that of Mr. Enfield; and That the name of Mr. Hanna be substituted for that of Mr. Beaudry; and That the name of Mr. Nixon be substituted for that of Mr. Gauthier (Nickel Belt); and That the name of Mr. Pommer be substituted for that of Mr. Viau; and
That the name of Mr. Starr be substituted for that of Mr. Nesbitt; and That the name of Mr. Small be substituted for that of Mr. Monteith; and That the name of Mr. Churchill be substituted for that of Mr. Pallett; and That the name of Mr. Bell be substituted for that of Mr. White (Middlesex East); and That the name of Mr. Hahn be substituted for that of Mr. Yuill, on the special committee on estimates; and


Walter Edward Harris: the first reading of Bill No. 352 (from the Senate), to amend the Livestock and Livestock Products Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the first reading of Bill No. 388 (from the Senate), to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


George Prudham: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has

been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1957 and 1958.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Roch Pinard (for Ihe Minister of Justice) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Criminal Code to provide for certain changes in connection with appeals to the supreme court; and also to establish the office of deputy registrar of the supreme court.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (Sf. Paul's):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the government developing any plans to deal with the present threatened unemployment due to lay-offs in the farm implement and automotive industries? If so, when will such plans be made known?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Well, Mr. Speaker, no specific plans directed toward absorbing the personnel being so laid off are being worked out, but I can tell my hon. friend that while it is unfortunate that skilled workers in that field may need to take other employment for the time being, nevertheless I am sure other employment will be available for most of them.
In the period since the middle of April down to about two or three weeks ago the number going off our application lists for employment across Canada has been almost a quarter of a million workers. The opportunities for employment are going to be quite numerous, and I hope those who are being laid off, not only in this industry but in others, will find the kind of employment that will carry them over. I can assure the house that our employment offices will work toward that end.
Supply-Fisheries



ALLEGED IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES WELDERS INTO BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct another question to the Minister of Labour. Complaints have been wired in from Vancouver to the effect that Westcoast Transmission Company Limited has brought in about 14 welders from the United States within the last two weeks to work on the pipe line from the Peace river, although there are approximately 80 qualified welders in Vancouver who are out of work. I wonder if the minister is aware of that situation, and if he can tell us whether anything can be done so these Canadians may get that work.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member's question the other day to my parliamentary assistant was reported to me, and on that as well as on the other information I have had, I have asked the commission for a report. I shall give it to the house just as soon as I get it.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May
I ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has he in the past two months issued any permits to United States welders to enter the province of British Columbia to work on the same pipeline proposition?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no recollection of having done so, but I think it would be wise for me to make inquiries before giving a definite answer.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
135. Departmental administration, $301,000.
Mr. Nowlan:: When the committee rose many weeks ago there had been a great deal of comment on the first item and many questions were asked. I am not sure whether there are any hon. members who wish to speak on this now, but I assume the minister will want to deal with the matters raised or I suggest respectfully he should.


Mr. Sinclair:: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has said, we have had two full days so far on the first item, and almost every member from a fishing area did speak on things concerning his riding.
I must start by thanking hon. members for the manner in which they have discussed the estimates of this department. The praise they gave will be most encouraging to the very

Supply-Fisheries
devoted officers of the Department of Fisheries who have done such a good job in conserving and developing our fisheries resources. The criticism will be a spur to me, as minister, to correct those things that hon. members feel should be improved upon.
Almost all the members who spoke touched on two or three main issues so far as fisheries were concerned. First and foremost was the matter of unemployment insurance for fishermen. This, of course, is a matter under my colleague the Minister of Labour, but my two colleagues the minister from Newfoundland, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the minister from Nova Scotia, the Minister of Public Works, as well as myself, are keenly interested and hopeful that a way can be found to include the fishermen of Canada under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
We have an interdepartmental committee working on this problem, and I think we have made quite good progress. I think it is fair to say that there would not be too much difficulty in bringing the British Columbia fishermen under the present act, mainly because British Columbia fishing is governed by fixed seasons, the length of which is set by the Department of Fisheries. So long as it is the intention not to pay unemployment insurance during the fishing season but merely for those who are unemployed outside the fishing season, it would not be too difficult.
It is a much more difficult problem in the maritime areas, where the major fisheries do not have fixed seasons. But we are hopeful we can come up with a satisfactory solution. We had a very helpful meeting with the officials of the big fishermen's unions on the west coast, who put forward their views on this matter.
The second matter discussed by almost every member from a coastal fishing riding was the matter of territorial waters. Almost all members seemed to agree with the fishermen and the fishing industry that the present three-mile limit is inadequate so far as conservation of our fisheries resources is concerned. The Fisheries Council of Canada and the fishermen's unions of Canada have supported an extension to at least 12 miles out, based on a straight base line drawn along our coast. As you know, this fall this whole problem is going to be the subject of a formal discussion at the United Nations, at which the Secretary of State for External Affairs will put forward the case which has been prepared.
The maritime members spoke about the very difficult problem of trawlers. The member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings especially raised it. The complaint results from the

fact that we keep our own Canadian trawlers, our big ships, 12 miles out to sea and so preserve the 12-mile coastal zone for fishermen who use smaller boats, draggers and even smaller, so there will be no interference between the big ships and the smaller ships. Unfortunately, however, we have no way of preventing foreign trawlers from coming into the three-mile limit since that is our present territorial boundary. We do not have that problem in British Columbia or in Newfoundland; it is a maritime provinces problem. It is a very difficult thing to decide because of the fact the inshore fishermen are vociferous about keeping the big ships out so they have a fair chance at the inshore fisheries, and naturally the Canadian trawlers who are 12 miles out and who see Spanish, Portuguese and other foreign trawlers inside that limit feel a sense of injustice.
In Nova Scotia they had a royal commission on this question, and our present policy is pretty well based on the findings of that commission. I cannot see that there is any clear-cut opinion in the fishing industry of Nova Scotia today for a change in the present regulations. We hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be a change in the territorial waters which will keep foreign trawlers out. This of course will be dependent on the United Nations discussions this fall.
One other question which almost every member raised was the need for more public works in the fishing ridings; anchorages, wharves or floats. This, of course, comes under my colleague the Minister of Public Works. I do the best I can in putting forward these requests from the fishermen for improved facilities. The entire assets of most fishermen are tied up in their fishing boats and gear, so naturally they want to see these things protected as much as possible.
Turning from these general questions raised by almost every member to other questions raised by members, I think the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, who led off in the debate, spoke with pride of the value of the fishing industry to Canadians. It amounts to over $200 million a year in market value. I heartily agree with him that it is a very important industry. It is a very scattered industry. I have calculated that there are over 40 constituencies where the fishing industry is an important industry. It is a great resource which we in Canada have done our best to husband, and I think we can look forward to a steadily increasing fishing industry in this country.
He and other maritime members emphasized the importance of not forgetting the importance of the cured fish and the salt-cured

industry of the maritime provinces. It is quite true we have had a very important development in the fresh and frozen fish industry, especially in fish sticks, and that is an added strength. I agree there is always going to be a need for a sound industry in the salted and cured fish of the maritimes. We are doing our best to encourage it. We do think it will be helpful to have a more diversified fishing industry, and not be totally dependent on markets in the Caribbean and Mediterranean.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni raised a question of why we do not make more use of our herring as human food. We have a very large catch of herring. This season on the west coast we caught an all-time record of a quarter of a million tons, and our east coast catch added to that, which means that about one-third of our fisheries catch in Canada is herring. Less than 2 per cent of the west coast herring is used for food. There is a larger percentage of the east coast herring used in that way, but we do put more than 90 per cent of our herring into fish meal and oil through reduction plants. This is not lost as a food resource, because these are the principal ingredients of the things which are added to food for our cattle and poultry, and they have resulted in improvement in growth and size.
The fishermen's union of British Columbia asked me to visit Norway on my way to Russia last summer to see what the Norwegians were doing with their herring. They felt that there was a much greater use being made of herring. So I made inquiries, and found to my surprise that over 80 per cent of Norwegian herring is also made into fish meal and fish oil, so the answer is the same in both countries. Herring is a small and bony fish, and the actual labour needed to fillet herring for the market and put it in a form acceptable to the modern housewife makes the cost so high that it is no longer competitive with other fish foods. We do not lose the value of herring as fish food in using it the way we do. We certainly would like to encourage the development of other uses for herring. At the moment it seems the principal use is going to be for fish meal and fish oil.
The hon. member asked me about our scientific program in the north Pacific. Last year the Americans, the Japanese and ourselves covered the entire treaty area of the north Pacific with the first real hydrographic and fisheries survey. We gained a lot of knowledge last summer. We shall have 25 ships out there this summer, all helping in the work of trying to find out the migration routes of the salmon, trying to find out the exact dividing line between those salmon which return to
Supply-Fisheries
our shores and those salmon which go to Siberian and Japanese streams. I was very much surprised last year to see the extent of the scientific work done by the Russians in their part of the Pacific. They are sending two of their scientists to the meeting of the north Pacific commission in Seattle this year, who will make a contribution in that field.
The hon. member also mentioned the difficulty between our Russian friends and our Japanese friends in the north Pacific last summer. Last month the Japanese and the Russians had a meeting in Moscow and agreed on a conservation treaty in the north Pacific, and have so stated. We have not yet got the particulars of it, but I am told it pretty well follows the pattern of our own three-nation north Pacific treaty.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni also raised the question of the spawning forecast issued by our department, which would seem to indicate that we had lost quite a heavy brood of salmon eggs because of the floods in British Columbia last fall. That is so. It was an act of God about which we can do very little, but we have had very encouraging reports this spring. Our scientists have noticed the greatest seaward migration of sockeye salmon from the Adams river in all our history.
He asked whether Indians were eligible for loans under the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act. That is a matter for decision pretty well by the bank managers. Indians are protected by law in many ways against being sued. Many of them have no real assets. Those who cannot obtain loans under this act, of course, have still the resources of the Indian affairs branch, wh'ch can make direct loans to Indians.
Then he asked what we were going to do when the great blast at Ripple Rock takes place to remove that obstacle to navigation. It will be at a time when the migratory fish, salmon and herring, are at a minimum. That is when the blast is scheduled to take place. There are no great numbers of ground fish in that area, mainly because the tidal sweep is so strong that ground fish do not hold their place. No doubt there will be some ground fish killed by the tremendous blast that will take place. They will come to the surface, and I am sure my hon. friend's constituents will be out there quickly to salvage as many of them as they can.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo commented on the place of the salt cod industry in Newfoundland, and indicated that the new plans were not the sole answer. He commented on the salt assistance program. He said it was a good program, but that the fishermen were required to fill out a form

Supply-Fisheries
which only a chartered accountant or a Rhodes scholar could understand. I am not a chartered accountant but I am the other. I must confess that I would have very great difficulty in filling out this form. Because of his observation I have given instructions to our officials to try to simplify this form for the benefit of the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces.
The hon. member for Nanaimo spoke of the great importance of fisheries in our history. In fact he said it was the search for fisheries that led to the discovery of Canada. In reading the recent biography of Sir John A. Macdonald I was impressed with how important the fisheries debates were in this house in the early days of our confederacy, and the negotiations in Washington between the United States and Britain which affected our fisheries, at which we were only bystanders. We have fortunately improved that situation since that day.
Then he raised a question which was novel to me, on the rights of the Indians in the Cowichan river with respect to their weirs. I had never heard of the weirs, but I found that our Indians up to 1939 did have their weirs on the side of the river, which was the only place in British Columbia where such weirs existed. It was in 1939 discussed at a meeting between the Indian band and the department and they agreed to abandon the weirs in return for the permission to use dip nets, spears and gaffs, which they have done quite satisfactorily.
Last season was a very poor season for chum salmon. It was a low run and some Indians had difficulty getting the number of salmon they usually get for food purposes for themselves, so blamed it on the lack of weirs. There is practically no limit on what Indians can take or how they take them as long as the salmon is for themselves or for their dogs.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich raised a point that he was very much bothered about, namely my refusal to accept the recommendations made by the international salmon commission that part of the Canadian fisheries area be completely closed. I gave the reasons why I had to do that at that time. Since that time the salmon commission have framed other regulations which are in keeping with the treaty passed in this house. I feel, from talking to members of the commission, that they think the time may be ripe to suggest changes in the treaty which, of course, will have to come before this parliament and the United States congress.
He raised one point which was very important to the work of our department. He

turned to me and said that I should look at the beam in my own eye, because he felt our fisheries officers were not being paid enough. That is a feeling I have, too. I was glad to have his observations, because at that time I was conducting a very strenuous campaign with the chairman of the civil service commission about the status of our officers as compared with other departments. It was a battle which I am glad to say I won, and I thank him for his comments which I was able to show as being illustrative of the fact that on both sides it was believed there was need for remedy there.
We have, of course, a problem in British Columbia because of the higher wage rates in effect in industry there as compared with the maritime provinces. We have uniform pay rates for our fisheries officers across the country. I think in the maritimes this pay is quite attractive in comparison with industrial pay, but in British Columbia there are many who feel that they can make more money in industry or in fishing itself rather than accepting employment as fisheries officers.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam raised the matter of our price support action a couple of years ago on bloaters from the Magdalen islands. He pointed out that we had sent salt cod to Korea and Greece, and that instead of condemning these bloaters and putting them into fish meal we should have sent them to the Congo or some depressed area. It is quite true we provided almost $1 million worth of salt cod after the earthquake in Greece and the war in Korea, but both these countries asked for salt cod. Salt fish is a staple of their diet.
These particular bloaters were a part of a very big catch in 1953. Bloaters have a very limited market. They are a very simple form of fish, a herring slightly salted and smoked whole. There is a limited market for them in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The private industry had sold all their bloaters, but the co-operatives down there had held out for a market increase. There was a great drop in the market and they were unable to sell the bloaters without help for almost a year, and finally they asked for a price support.
Our price support program only relates to the fishermen themselves. We examined these bloaters. Those unfit for human consumption were destroyed. There were some not unfit for human consumption but they could not be sold to anybody because they were stiff and hard and crumbled into powder when touched. These we got at a very low price and turned over to the fish plant to be reduced

into fish meal. I do not think the people in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Greece or Korea would have welcomed the bloaters, and the cost of transporting them there certainly would have been far more than the worth of the bloaters.
The hon. member for Charlotte raised the question of the suggested move of two sections of the St. Andrews research station to Halifax. The hon. member for Royal also raised the question. Since it has been before the house I have asked the fisheries research board to hold up any action on that proposal. I have appointed as an industrial member of the research board from New Brunswick the manager of one of the fish plants in Charlotte, Mr. Leigh Williamson, who is also the mayor of the city of St. Andrews, and I am sure he will put forward the reasons against making any alterations at the next meeting of the research board.
I think those are the major points that were raised on item 1. There are a number of other matters directly connected with other items, such as the vessel indemnity plan, which I think probably could be best answered on those items.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question at the moment. The minister has referred to the problem of territorial waters. We realize this is a serious problem, one which has been before this committee now for several years, and which I am sure will be before it for some years yet to come.
When I raised the matter last year and asked the minister particularly with respect to the Curtis report which was to be submitted to the government, I think the record shows the answer I got at that time was that this report had not yet been studied by the government but it would be shortly and thereafter the report of the Curtis commission would be made available. I may be mistaken about this, but as far as I know the report has not yet been made available. I was wondering where that report is and if it now could be produced so we could study the situation further.


James Sinclair: The report has been completed. It is in the Department of External Affairs. I do not know whether my colleague has prepared his submission to the United Nations for this fall, but I do not know of any reason why the actual Curtis report should not be made available. I have told my colleague of the undertaking I gave here in the house, and I am sure the report will be made available.


George Clyde Nowlan: I hope the minister will take this matter up with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because we were told 67509-309
Supply-Fisheries
last year it was in his hands and certainly this matter is going to go on for some considerable time. It seriously affects some constituencies because it is allied with the trawler problem, and it is one of very great importance to the fishermen in my own area. I am not going to pursue this matter further, but I would urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he takes the matter up at the United Nations to strive to achieve a little more action than we have had heretofore.


Mr. Barnett:: I wish to bring a matter up for a little discussion while we are still on item 1 of these estimates. I did not have the time or opportunity to do so when we were considering these estimates earlier this year. The matter about which I am concerned relates to a problem which may have been brought to the attention of a number of hon. members of the house by the united fishermen and allied workers' union of British Columbia in respect to the problem which they feel they have in connection with having representatives or observers of their organization in attendance at meetings of the various international fisheries commissions.
I realize that one might say this comes within the purview of the Department of External Affairs; nevertheless I feel it is a matter which, like a number of other matters, is of active concern to the Department of Fisheries and to members who are concerned with fisheries problems. Certainly the lead which the present Minister of Fisheries has given in the matter of international treaties I think would bear out the fact that this is a matter which can be properly raised at this time.
I think one might as well state what is part of the problem in frank terms. Part of the problem arises out of the question of the passing of communists or alleged communists across the border which exists between Canada and the United States. Part of the grievance which the fishermen's union raised was in respect to the treatment some of their members have received in an attempt to cross the border. Quite frankly I have a great deal of sympathy for them in that particular problem, because I happen to have had a little experience on one or two occasions.
I shall not elaborate on the experiences in detail, but I remember one occasion in particular when I was attempting to cross the border as a delegate to attend an international union convention and certain circumstances developed which in my opinion were rather unfortunate. The most vivid recollection I have of that incident, as a matter of fact, is that one of our delegation who happened

Supply-Fisheries
to be a member of the Liberal party of Canada was subjected to a great deal of suspicion immediately the immigration officer discovered the membership card of the Liberal party in his wallet.
As I say, that problem is one aspect of this matter, and one which I agree is not primarily the concern of the Minister of Fisheries as such. Nevertheless I think perhaps the minister would agree that attending these meetings either as an observer or an adviser by those who from time to time are chosen to represent a body such as the united fishermen and allied workers' union is a legitimate desire on their part.
Quite frankly I do not know what the solution is, in so far as we in this house can have no jurisdiction over the regulations that are put into effect from time to time by the congress of the United States, other than the solution which the fishermen's union actually did propose in one of their communications. They suggested that arrangements should be made to hold these meetings either in Canada or at some place where citizens of both countries who enjoy the normal right of freedom of movement in their respective countries would be in a position to attend if they so desired.
I have almost come to the point of suggesting to the Minister of Fisheries that he might give serious consideration to erecting a building for the holding of meetings of international bodies on the border at the Peace Arch near Blaine, one-half of which could be on one side of the border and the other half on the other side of the border. In a situation of that kind naturally the citizens of both countries would be free to be in attendance. I think this is a matter that should be receiving some consideration, in view of the number of these international commissions which we now have in which both Canada and the United States participate. I would welcome any statement on this problem which the minister might feel like making.


James Sinclair: As the hon. member has pointed out, this is a matter primarily for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We have Canadian members on these international commissions, and since I have been minister I have appointed one commercial fisherman on each commission so the fishermen would have a direct voice in the commissions. We have never had any trouble whatsoever with members of the commissions travelling back and forth between countries.
In addition there are advisory committees whose members are nominated by the fishermen's union, the fisheries association, the vessel owners and other groups. It is true

that on occasion certain members of these advisory committees which were picked by the fishermen's union have been stopped at the boundary on the ground that they were communists or communist sympathizers. I wrote to the union and pointed out that we have no direct control over what the United States do in the way of permitting entry into their country. I pointed out to the fishermen's union that only a fraction of one per cent of their members are communist, and therefore it should not be too hard when they know what barriers there are to choose able fishermen who are not under suspicion as being communists or communist supporters.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the minister has said, but I still think we should recognize that any organization should have the right to conduct its own internal affairs and select any of its people to represent it. It should be possible to make arrangements so that can be done. Whether the minister or I may consider that a man is the best delegate the union could have chosen, that in fact is not our business. Perhaps some arrangement could be made to facilitate this movement in accordance with basic democratic principles with which I think both the minister and I agree. I pointed out earlier that a member of the political organization to which the minister belongs was under definite suspicion by a certain immigration officer. This would indicate that even with the best intentions an organization such as the united fishermen and allied workers' union might have difficulty in sending perhaps the most innocent of their members across the line.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Chairman, I doubt that this has very much to do with the Minister of Fisheries, but the matter has been allowed to be brought up on the floor of the committee and I want to comment briefly upon what the Minister of Fisheries has said. He represents my views entirely. I have a large fishing population in one part of my riding, and at Steveston in my riding is located the largest cannery in the British Empire.
I am at variance with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. If I understood him rightly he said the united fishermen should be allowed to send delegates to other countries without difficulty. I want to take issue with him on that. This country has a responsibility in regard to those who are sent to other countries to represent us. As he knows and as the minister knows, if a representative of the united fishermen's union is chosen to go to another country it will be the secretary treasurer who ran against me in the last election as a labour progressive candidate. I hope the Minister of Fisheries and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will never

allow that person to represent Canada in any foreign country outside of those behind the iron curtain.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has put a slightly incorrect interpretation upon what I said.


Tom Goode: If I did, I apologize.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was not suggesting to the Minister of Fisheries or to the minister of external affairs that we should assume the right to choose certain citizens of our country to be sent to other countries. All I was suggesting was that the minister canvass the possibility of arranging for these commissions to meet in Canada or in line with the suggestion which I put forward, not too seriously in its exact form but nevertheless with some seriousness as far as the principle involved is concerned, to make it possible for those who might be chosen from time to time to attend as advisers or observers on behalf of the union. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has mentioned one particular member of the union and has referred to certain of his political activities. Let me make it clear at once that I am no more in agreement with the policies which that member espouses than is the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.


Tom Goode: I am sure of that.


Mr. Ashbourne:: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to have spoken the first day the estimates of the Department of Fisheries were before the committee, but another hon. member was anxious to get away before we took up private and public bills that afternoon and I gave my place to him. The second day the estimates were before the committee I was on my way back from Newfoundland where I had attended a conference on northern Newfoundland affairs. I did not get back until Saturday morning, having been delayed. I had taken part in the conference during that week as it had opened on Tuesday and finished on Thursday.
I should like to draw a few points to the attention of the minister and I shall be very brief, as I did not know that these estimates were to come up this afternoon. We have heard quite a bit about the need for unemployment insurance for fishermen, and as the minister has mentioned this afternoon the fishermen are looking forward to having something done in their behalf in this regard.
There has been quite a decline in the volume of fish caught around Newfoundland during the past few years, and one reason is the lower earnings of fishermen as compared with the wages they can earn from carpentry and employment in other industries. There is 67509-309J
Supply-Fisheries
a great demand for their services at the present time. The small catch is reflected in the amount of our exports to those countries to which we have habitually been forwarding codfish. That represents less money for our people. The fact that there has been a decline is quite evident, and I think steps should be taken to counteract this decline.
The granting of 50 per cent of the cost of salt last year has been greatly appreciated by the fishermen of Newfoundland, and we are glad to hear that this is to be continued for another year. Some of us were hoping that something might be done to encourage the making of more light salted fish rather than heavy salted fish. The markets of Italy and Brazil and also Spain have a preference for that kind of fish, the slack salted, hard dried fish. This granting of the 50 per cent of the value of the salt does not really tend to improve the total catch and the total production of the light salted fish. It rather helps in the way of encouraging the heavy salted type, and much of it, of course, has been going from Newfoundland to the Nova Scotia fish plants, where they have been drying this fish which they have been buying from the Newfoundland fishermen.
Last year I spoke about the need for encouraging a better cure for fish. I understood from the minister that he would make certain studies in that regard. I should like him to let the house know what have been the results of his studies in this regard, because I think it would definitely be of great advantage to give some positive inducement to the fishermen in order that they would make more light salted fish. If some inducement in that regard were offered to the fishermen, it would be a means of encouraging them to do that.
The only other matter to which I would like to draw the minister's attention at this time is that I consider something should be done to increase the number of cullers, who have to cull the salt cod which come in from the fishermen. It is no easy matter to stand up and pass judgment on the fish, but there have to be cullers. Whilst it is not a job that many people relish, because they are often called into question, I would suggest that a school be set up or some instruction be given to the younger men in order that they might be in a position where they could more easily grade the different qualities of fish that are presented to them. If the government took a step in this direction I think it would be very helpful to the industry.


James Sinclair: I have short reports to make on both these matters when we come to the items concerned: item 162 on salt assistance,

Supply-Fisheries
and item 142 on fish inspection. I can speak at more length then and answer the points raised by both the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and the other Newfoundland member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 136 and 137 agreed to.
138.	Industrial development service, $590,000.
George Clyde Nowlan: I notice that there is a very substantial reduction in the estimates for this year as compared with the year before, amounting to $385,000. This is the item dealing with the industrial development service. I wonder whether the minister could give us a word of explanation as to what is involved in this reduction.


James Sinclair: The vote in the past two years covered our new experimental station at Valleyfield in Newfoundland. That is almost completed. I think most of the difference is due to that one big project.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Field services-
139.	Field services administration, $768,470.
George Clyde Nowlan: There are several questions that could be asked about item 139. That is the first item dealing generally with field services. I would be perfectly happy to have that carried now if it is understood that someone will make a more general comment on the field services on some future occasion.


James Sinclair: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Protection branch-
140.	Operation and maintenance, $3,288,650.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise at this point on a specific item which has to do, as I understand it, with the operation and maintenance of the protection branch. First of all let me say that I was very pleased to hear the minister's statement earlier, in referring to the remarks made on the first item by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, on the matter of the salary levels of some of his officials in the field, and I am glad that some adjustment has been made there. I was certainly in agreement with the remarks made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich earlier this year.
The other point I wish to raise is in connection with the field service officers of the department, and in particular with respect to the question of the patrolmen who are hired on a seasonal basis, as I understand it, every year. This question was brought to my attention during some of the travels in which I engaged during the last recess. It is in respect to what I understand to be a new regulation

calling for the compulsory retirement of patrolmen at the age of 65.
I might state briefly that it was brought to my attention in one instance by one of the patrolmen. If it had been only a matter of that single instance I might not have considered it was a matter to raise at this time, but from other conversations I have had with fishermen and people who have a knowledge of the fisheries and the functioning of the protection service on the coast, it does appear to me that this compulsory retirement in all cases of the patrolmen at the age of 65-if that is actually the situation-is something which could very well militate against the effectiveness of the protection service which is maintained on the coast of British Columbia. The minister would probably agree with me that in many cases the patrolmen who are engaged by the department are senior fishermen who have had a good many years of active experience in the game of fishing, and in some cases according to anecdotes to which I have listened-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It being five o'clock, we must proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I might just finish my sentence, Mr. Chairman, I was going to say-who had some experience in the problems of beating the game, as far as fisheries protection is concerned, in their earlier and more exuberant years.


James Sinclair: Is that a recommendation for patrolmen?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps for that reason they make very wise and efficient servants of the department when they assume the obligations of the department.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Private and public bills.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, it just occurred to me that it is possible the whole hour may not be taken up. I am not aware whether it is going to be taken up or not. If it is not, the committee might have leave to sit later this day, if that occurs.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that proposal agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 340, respecting the Maritime Stock Breeders' Association-Mr. Purdy-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.

On clause 1-Exhibitions.
William Gilbert Weir: May we have an explanation of this bill? It is a rather important one, and I think there is a good deal of interest in it on the part of hon. members of the house. Is the sponsor of the bill going to say anything about these various sections.


Mr. Purdy:: This is a bill amending the charter of the maritime stock breeders' association, which was passed by this house in 1922. I might say that the maritime stock breeders' association is the concern which sponsors the Maritime winter fair at Amherst in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Cumberland.
The only change we are asking for is this. In the original incorporation the association was given the privilege of holding exhibitions of livestock. We are now asking, in addition to that, for the privilege of holding exhibitions of livestock, agricultural produce and any other products, goods or services produced on or for a farm, and also to make available its facilities for the purchase or sale of any such livestock or other such agricultural produce, products, goods or services.
The second clause is a new one. Formerly the association had not the power to borrow money. It is now seeking the power to borrow money in order that it may temporarily finance. Formerly the money was advanced by the directors. I might say that this is a great institution, bringing on the livestock in the maritime provinces which in a few years will be in active competition with the livestock from the wonderful province of Manitoba, in which is the constituency of the hon. gentleman who asked the question.


William Gilbert Weir: I thank the hon. member.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1
carry?


Mr. Pearkes:: May I ask a question? Does this act refer to fur-bearing animals as well?


Gordon Timlin Purdy: If you call the hides of livestock fur, I suppose it does. Otherwise it does not.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is no answer. I should like to know whether it applies to fur-bearing animals. There are many farmers who are engaged in the raising of fur for domestic purposes. There are fox farms, mink farms and that sort of thing. Are they included in the provisions of this act?


Gordon Timlin Purdy: May I just say this. It refers to exhibitions of livestock. My definition of livestock would hardly include fur-bearing animals. It might come under the definition of fur farms.
Private Bills


Mr. MacLean:: The sponsor of the bill is of the opinion that it does not include furbearing animals. I have been at this exhibition at various times, and I may say that one of the most interesting exhibits is that of live mink. I believe they also have foxes, but I am not sure about that second exhibit. I would therefore think it might include furbearing animals as livestock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about wolves?


Gordon Timlin Purdy: I can only say that I have attended this fair since it originated in 1900, and that I have never seen any mink exhibited and I have never seen foxes exhibited. They are a separate industry, as I would understand it.


Mr. Malheson:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to disagree with my hon. friend from Truro. I have also attended this fair for some years. They have an excellent showing of foxes and an excellent showing of mink each year.


George Clyde Nowlan: I can say that I have also been to this fair, Mr. Chairman. It is an excellent fair, in any event. Certainly what this association has done has been to promote its activities. Although this bill is subject to some scrutiny and some questioning here -that is proper on all bills, closure not having been invoked-I suggest that nevertheless it is an association which is doing good work in the maritime provinces. I hope it will commend itself to the support of hon. members.


William Gilbert Weir: I am entirely satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 189, to incorporate La Paix General Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Bourque.
Bill No. 255, to incorporate the Canadian Provincial Insurance Company.-Mr. Bourque.
Bill No. 301, to incorporate Grand Falls Central Kailway Company Limited.-Mr. Ashbourne.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Marcel Alban St. Amour.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 342, for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Browning MacDonald.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Mary Carol Devone Henry Scott.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Stanley Mira Levene, otherwise known as Stanley Mira Francis.-Mr. Henderson.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Alice Isabel Christian Thompson.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Czarna Landz-man Desmarais.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Real Perras. -Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Andrea Marietta Hiekisch Farago.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Barbara Mary Elliott Priestley..-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Nancy Elizabeth Theresa Butler Waugh.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Robert James Clarke.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Veronica Rose Latter Haworth Robinson.'-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Billie Mae Margaret Taylor Dennis.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Naida Donni-thorne St. James.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Alma Elizabeth Mackie Wahlberg.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of William Maguire.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Anne Perley-Robertson McNicoll.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Colette Palardy Loranger.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Esther Kathleen Hamilton Williamson Maynard.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 365, for the relief of Helga Maria Berger Pilgrim.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 366, for the relief of Ruth Carol Friedman Allen.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 367, for the relief of Joseph Thomas Evans.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 368, for the relief of Marie Jacqueline Carmen Van Troyen Morin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 369, for the relief of Hazel Wil-helmina Langtry Kimpton.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 370, for the relief of Sergei Ver-mala.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 371, for the relief of Stanley Tom Wood.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 372, for the relief of Amelia Alice Stefani Schofield.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 373, for the relief of Bridget Rowley McHale Bowman.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 374, for the relief of Shirley Susan Morris Duggan.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 375, for the relief of Maureen Evelyn Allison Cooper.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 376, for the relief of William Windsor Frewen.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 377, for the relief of Ethel Hansen Echlin.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 378, for the relief of Muriel Doreen Southall Fisher.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 379, for the relief of Paulette Lavallee Plotkin.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 381, for the relief of Peter Butler.- Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Ivy Umilta Gooding Joseph.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Margaret Lash Johnston.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Ethel Simon Baroff.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 385, for the relief of Golda Cohen Winter.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Henriette Lessard Hughes.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Ewart Ernest Clouston.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 389, for the relief of Mary Ethel Irving Buchanan Simcox.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 390, for the relief of Constance Catherine Mary Pilon Milmine.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 391, for the relief of Joseph Henri Maurice Messier.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 392, for the relief of Mildred Helena Seale Darker.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 393, for the relief of Robert Alfred Price.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 394, for the relief of Alfred Sevigny. -Mr. Henderson.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 395, for the relief of Marie Therese Gerega St-Jacques.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 396, for the relief of Julius Michael Cantor.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 397, for the relief of Gerald Zel-man.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 398, for the relief of Lucille Viola Arthur Ward.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 399, for the relief of May O'Connor MacKenzie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 400, for the relief of Rita Cleevely Scott.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 401, for the relief of Leah Banfield Rideout.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 402, for the relief of Margaret Isobel Gillespie MacKenzie.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 403, for the relief of Edda Roehm Sackmann.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of Joseph Ernest Adrien Joly.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 405, for the relief of Jacqueline Bussiere Sirois.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 406, for the relief of Doris Elaine Cameron Gladwish.-Mr. Henderson.

Bill No. 407, for the relief of Myra Goodman Lobell.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 408, for the relief of Jennie Zalezniak Wiseman.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 409, for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Jardine Williams.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 410, for the relief of Martha Hope MacDougall Fortier.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 411, for the relief of Hugh Oliver Semper.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 412, for the relief of Yvonne Elizabeth Thurgarland Brosseau.-Mr. Henderson.
Bill No. 413, for the relief of Hugh Lawrence Byers.-Mr. Henderson.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 121, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
George Clyde Nowlan: Before the mover of the bill closes the debate, if there are no other speakers I should like to say a few words on this matter. I have forgotten the date upon which we had this bill up for second reading, but it was many weeks ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was March 9.


George Clyde Nowlan: At that time the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) spoke on this matter and presented certain facts to the house which I think are relevant, because I have had the opportunity of sitting on the committee of this house which has dealt with the elections act and proposed amendments over a period of six or seven years, ever since I have been in this house.
This matter contained in the proposed bill, or at least the important phase of it which is the matter of the advance polls, has been considered by that committee on various occasions. Evidence has been taken and views have been strongly presented, but in every case of which I have knowledge the committee has decided that it was not advisable to adopt this proposal.
I think many arguments could be advanced in its favour. I believe one of the things which many people overlook is the difference between our election act and the election acts of Great Britain and other parts of the commonwealth. As I understand it, we are the only part of the commonwealth which does not have a closed election list which enables them to be ready for an election at any time. You get your certificate that you are entitled to vote; therefore elections can be brought on very
Canada Elections Act
quickly and with very few complications. In our country, for reasons which apparently are justified because of conditions which prevail here, we have never adopted that practice. Our lists are prepared at election time and that involves a great deal of time and expense. Arguments which may apply in other jurisdictions with respect to this matter, therefore, I do suggest do not apply here.
Now, of course, it is very easy to argue, and it is desirable, that everyone be given an opportunity to vote no matter what the circumstances may be; that is the idea. It is perhaps difficult to argue against that. It is always difficult to argue against something which has a theoretical appeal. We all realize that people are deprived of a vote because of the fact that occasionally they have to be away. I think it is desirable that the elections committee of this house, when that committee is set up again, should consider, as was recommended as I recall it at our last session, enlarging to some extent the scope of the advance poll so as to give more people an opportunity to vote. In fact I believe that scope has been enlarged during the time I have served on the committee.
The proposal contained in this bill is to the effect that any person who signs a declaration that he intends to or thinks he will be away on election day, can vote at the advance poll. As I recall it, the Secretary of State put certain financial considerations on the record which I think should be considered by this house, although they are not definitive and should not be taken as absolute. The mere fact that it is going to cost the country something additional should not be the yardstick we use in deciding whether or not we are going to give people the vote. Nevertheless, it is somewhat of an important factor.
I have discussed this matter with the chief electoral officer, who is an official of the house, and as I recall it he told me, although I did not take time to look up the record, that in the last election we had 243 advance polls in Canada. If this bill is adopted the chief electoral officer assumes we would have to have one advance poll for every 5 polls in urban areas and one advance poll for every 15 polls in rural areas, or approximately 5,000 more advance polls. If we take the cost as it was the last time, $130 a poll, you will see that it means a substantial increase in cost to the treasury. As I say, it is only one factor, but it is one which we have to consider.
There is also the factor that you are going to have a miniature general election over a period of three days instead of one. At the
4882	HOUSE OF
Canada Elections Act
moment everyone knows pretty well who is entitled to vote at the advance poll. The classes are defined and you make your preparations accordingly, in so far as manning the polls is concerned by the chief electoral officer, as well as by the political parties who may or may not decide to be represented at those polls. If you are going to have a situation where anyone may come in and vote it is going to result in a miniature general election for a period of three days rather than one. I assume that would mean that the political parties would have to be represented at these polls.
Again that may or may not be a matter of expense, and as I say expense should not be the definitive factor in this question. It would mean extra expense in most ridings, certainly in the urban areas, though I think there are some rural areas where workers can be found on a voluntary basis and where they would be shocked at the thought of being paid for their services. But I am told there are many areas, and I can see the practice developing even in the rural areas in the maritimes which I think is reprehensible, where you have to pay people to work for a political party at election time.
In urban areas, if you have to employ agents and scrutineers for a period of three days instead of for the one day which is generally the practice, it means that at least this is going to aggravate the problem of getting candidates, running elections, and so forth. I think also it involves the fact that candidates would have to be nominated at least one week earlier than has been the practice heretofore.
That is what the chief electoral officer advised the committee a year ago, and I think we have to take his judgment on this because he is an experienced officer, and certainly a very fair one, and one whose judgment I am sure this house will accept. He says it involves the nomination of candidates for at least three weeks prior to an election rather than the two weeks which has prevailed heretofore. That may or may not be an important factor but, generally speaking, there has been the feeling that there has been difficulty in the past when political parties nominated candidates too early. That is another reason why I think one should consider this very carefully.
I think an important factor above all which hon. members should consider, particularly those from urban areas-and certainly it does not concern me because I come from a rural area-is that in an urban area you would have a situation where a person could vote on an advanced poll certificate. All he would have to do would be to sign a declaration that he thought he was going to be 

away on election day. The opportunities for impersonation are such that what may have happened in certain urban areas in the past will, to use a slang expression, seem like a Sunday school picnic compared with what will happen if this provision comes into effect.
I have heard these arguments pro and con over the past years. I have listened to evidence of various people dealing with the suggestion. The committee representing all parties in this house gave careful consideration to those representations, and in each case the committee decided by a very substantial majority that it was not in the public interest to enlarge the advance poll to the extent that is proposed in this bill, though recognizing the theoretical advisability of giving everyone a chance to vote.
Opposed to that would be the practical and mechanical difficulties, to say nothing of the cost, which could be imposed on the other side. In every case the committee has voted against this proposal. My own feeling, Mr. Speaker, is that the committee adopted the proper procedure on those occasions. As one who has gone through it in past years, I cannot support the bill at this time.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on this matter. I have had a little experience with elections, and I believe we should make it as easy as possible for people to cast their votes in our elections.
One criticism that is being made everywhere about democratic elections is that people are no longer interested in them. We cannot get the vote out. In municipal elections the number of voters is as small as 30 per cent. In my opinion we should do anything we can to make it easier for people to vote at an election without, of course, irregularities.
I am not greatly impressed with the argument of additional costs made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I have noticed that in almost every department of life when anything new is suggested there is always opposition to it. Once it is accepted nobody would think of doing away with it. The class of people who can vote at advance polls has been changed from time to time. At one time it was reserved for railroad men and commercial travellers. As hon. members know, a person can cease to be a commercial traveller, still be a member of the commercial travellers' association and carry his card in that association, and vote at an advance poll as long as he lives.
The number of people who may be away from their homes on election day is increasing

because of changes in our way of life. A few years ago very few people in this country, with the exception of professional and wealthy people, had holidays. Now almost everybody has holidays and they get them at different times. We found that because the last election was held at the time it was, a great many people were prevented from voting because they were away on holidays. We should use every means we can, with all the safeguards that are necessary, to make it easy for people to vote. If a man or woman knows that on election day he or she is going to be away and would like to cast a vote and takes steps to do that, we should look upon it as an indication of good citizenship and we should help that person to perform his or her good citizenship function.
I imagine at all elections, if voters know the right people, they can vote at an advance poll whether they fall within the class who vote at an advance poll or not. I am going to give a little incident that I have knowledge of myself because it happened to me. I shall not mention names or dates, because in agreeing to this I may have committed an offence under the Canada Elections Act. On the Friday night preceding the election a man called me up and said, "Angus, I would like to vote for you on Monday, but I am a contractor. I have a contract in Victoria and I have to be there. Is there any way by which I can vote at an advance poll?" I said, "No, there is not. There is no way by which you can legally vote at an advance poll, but I will give you a tip. You go to the headquarters of the Liberal party and tell them of your predicament but do not tell them whom you are going to vote for. Then call me up on Saturday night before you leave for Victoria and tell me how you got along". Well, he called me up on Saturday night and said, "I voted". I knew he would vote if I sent him to the right people. I did not ask him how he voted.


Roch Pinard: Was he not a travelling salesman instead of a contractor?


Angus MacInnis: I do not know what he was when he voted, but he was a contractor before and he was a contractor after he voted. What he was during the time he cast his vote is not material. We should use every means we can to get people to vote and to vote honestly. We should use every means we can to keep people from having to use subterfuges to perform their duties of citizenship.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre may be too wide. Perhaps it is; I do not know. If it is too wide we should accept the principle sympathetically. If we cannot accept it today we should refer it to the next meeting 67509-310
Canada Elections Act
of the elections committee, and I am quite sure that if we discuss it with the sympathy it deserves we shall increase the number of people who will be able to cast their ballots at advance polls because they will be away from their homes legitimately on election day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was debated on March 9 the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard), speaking for the government, indicated his opposition to the bill, though he did profess sympathy with my contention that it should be made possible for everyone who is on the voters' list to vote.
The arguments the Secretary of State advanced against the bill were mainly two. In the first place it was his view that if it were made possible for anyone whose name is on the voters' list to vote at the advance poll there might be a tendency for great numbers of people to vote at the advance poll and leave only 60 per cent or half the population to vote on the ordinary polling day. He felt that that would be injurious to the interest in general elections, and for that reason he was not sympathetic to the bill. He also indicated there were certain technical difficulties in connection with carrying out a procedure of this kind. It was mainly on those two grounds, if I remember correctly, that he felt the government could not accept the bill.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska also spoke in opposition to the bill, and as I recall it he echoed the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State. He also expressed some surprise and perhaps concern over the fact that if this bill went through people simply going off on trips to Winnipeg would be able to vote before they left on such a desirable journey.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Secretary of State put up a rather absurd argument when he suggested that a large percentage of people would vote at the advance poll even though they were not going to be away from home on election day. The reason I think that argument is absurd is that we already have universal voting at advance polls in a number of the provinces in this country. It happens in my home city of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba in provincial elections, and although more people percentage-wise take advantage of that right than is the case in federal elections-because of the difference in the law-still the number is not great at all.
4884	HOUSE OF
Canada Elections Act


Roch Pinard: That does not make the argument absurd, I believe; but it might well be that the situation would become such in a dominion general election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it is pretty difficult for the Secretary of State to argue from no known facts to the position he takes. I think it is much more logical to deduce what would happen from a parallel situation that already exists.


Roch Pinard: But it does increase, does it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, and there are other hon. members from other provinces, as a matter of fact, who have expressed the same surprise at that argument. I do not think there is any question but that the general interest would be in the ordinary day of polling, the general election day. All we are asking for here is that those who find they have to be away from home for any reason be given the right to vote at an advance poll.
As to the technical difficulties in carrying out a matter of this kind, I recognize them readily. I did so, as a matter of fact, when I spoke in introducing the bill on second reading. I was able to indicate on that occasion, and express my appreciation in doing so, that I had assistance from two of our officials, the chief electoral officer and our parliamentary counsel, in the preparing of the bill. I take the responsibility for what is in the bill, but I did have their advice and assistance in putting it together, and I suggest that it does contain practical ways in which this principle of the right of anyone who has to be away to vote at the advance poll can be preserved.
Nevertheless, as I suggested when I moved second reading of the bill on March 9, these technical difficulties constitute the kind of details that can be discussed if this bill can have second reading and then be referred to a committee. In other words, Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with at this point is the principle rather than the details of the bill, and the principle is very simple and clear; namely, that if we are going to have advance polls the right to vote at an advance poll should not be restricted to a limited category of people but should be extended to all who find they will be away from their homes on election day.
As to the point raised by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska regarding people who go on trips, let there be no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker; one of the main reasons I have presented this bill and one of the main reasons it has support from certain sections of the community to which I shall refer in a moment, is because it is now true that more people have holidays than used to be the case.


It is also true that elections generally seem to come in the summer period. In recent years elections have been held in June or in August or in October, if we go back to 1935. I think it is generally recognized that barring some unexpected event that would force an election at an unexpected time, elections will continue to be held in the summer period. Let there be no secret about it; this bill is advanced partly in order that people who rightly go away on holidays might have the right to vote. Surely going away on a holiday is not a crime for which one should lose his right as a citizen to vote at a general election.


Angus MacInnis: Legitimate business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some people who go away can get back from their holidays, depending on how far away they are or how much money they have to spend to make the trip back home, but for a great many people that is impossible. We feel the citizens of the country should be entitled to vote even if a general election comes in the period they are away on holidays, and that is precisely one of the reasons for presenting this bill.
I shall not take further time to repeat the arguments I made in presenting the bill on March 9, for the obvious reason is that if a vote has to be taken I would not want to keep the house here past six o'clock, so I shall conclude with just this further comment.
Hon. members will recall that they have received, if their experience is similar to mine, quite a few letters in support of Bill No. 121 which is now before them, and I think they will recognize that these letters in the main have come from two types of organizations. They have come on the one hand from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and from local chambers of commerce. They have come on the other hand from labour organizations. I think that makes it pretty clear this is the kind of bill that appeals to a cross section of the community, for surely if you take those who are represented by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and those who are represented by the labour organizations of this country you have a very large section of the Canadian population. As hon. members are aware, these organizations have given their support to the principle of this bill and have urged that this house give it a favourable vote at this time.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, if the house agrees to the second reading of this bill it would then be my suggestion that it be referred for further study to the committee on privileges and elections.
My friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has expressed surprise at my suggesting that it be referred to the committee on

privileges and elections. The reason for that, if I may say so to my colleague, is that the last time the Canada Elections Act was under consideration by a committee of the house, instead of a special committee being set up it was referred to the committee on privileges and elections.


Roch Pinard: Was not a similar proposal
studied at that time in the committee and voted down?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly. This bill was not before the committee, but the principle contained in the bill was considered in the committee. I believe it was on the motion of the hon. member for Dauphin.


Roch Pinard: I just wanted to mention that because I would have thought it had been given full study at the time, and that was quite recently.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was it in this parliament?


Roch Pinard: No, at the last revision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words it was previous to the election of 1953?


Roch Pinard: No, at the previous session, I meant; it was considered during the revision of the act last year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say to the Secretary of State that sometimes Liberals make progress and accept the things they have been turning down across the years.


Roch Pinard: Perhaps the same is true of my hon. friend and he might also change his mind.
Mr.' Knowles: If the minister wants examples I can keep him here quite a while telling him of proposals which have been made from this corner of the house which were turned down year after year but eventually accepted by the government of the day. I believe the day will come when the wishes expressed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and by the labour organizations of this country will be accepted by parliament as a whole, and it will be enacted that the right to vote at advance polls in general elections should be extended not to just a few of our people but to all those entitled to vote. I hope the house will agree to the second reading of this bill.


Mr. Boisvert:: May I ask a question of the hon. member? Would it not be possible that more people would vote at the advance polls than at the designated polls on polling day?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose it would be possible for the entire population to vote at the advance polls instead of on the general polling day, but if I may say so without offending my hon. friend, for I do not want to do that, 67509-3104
Canada Elections Act
I think the suggestion that that would happen is in the realm of absurdity. I do not think it would happen in a federal general election any more than it has happened in provincial general elections in my own province of Manitoba. I think the interest of our people would still be in the general election day, but at the same time this measure would remove one of the most serious grievances we come up against in every general election, when people come into the committee rooms of the various parties and into the headquarters of the returning officer wondering why it is that although there are advance polls no vote is available to them. The purpose of this bill is to correct that situation.


Walter Edward Harris: On Monday we shall take interim supply and, if that is passed, we shall take the resolution with respect to the Canadian National Railway Company financing, the resolution in the name of the Minister of National Defence with respect to the Defence Services Pension Act, etc., and second reading of the bill in my name in respect to the Tariff Board Act.


George Alexander Drew: Could I ask the Prime Minister if he has yet reached a decision as to whether there will be an adjournment?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, it has not been possible to reach any decision since this morning.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out simply, so the position may be clear, that to ask for one month's interim supply with the possibility of adjournment creates a situation which cannot be disregarded. We are not dealing with a normal situation, if there is one month's supply and then an adjournment for several months, and for that reason I think that in asking for any consideration of the procedure that should be adopted it is essential that we know exactly what the position will be.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We could not suggest an adjournment after having obtained only one month's supply.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:
veterans' training expenditures
Mr. Eniield: During the fiscal year 1955-56, what sums ol
money were expended by the Department of Veterans Affairs in each departmental district for (a) university training under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act; (b) vocational training under the Veterans Rehabilitation Act; (c) training under the Children of War Dead (Educational Assistance) Act?
Answer by:	Mr. Benneil. Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Veterans Affairs:
	Veterans Rehabilitation Act		(c) Children of
(a)	(b)	War Dead (Educationuniversity	vocational	Assistance)D.V.A. district	training	training	ActSt. John's, Newfoundland ...	... $ -	$ 2,637.42	$ 368.59Charlottetown, P.E.I	. . . 	1,356.31	769.34Halifax, N.S	... 25,469.69	6,362.76	20,920.21Saint John, N.B	... 7,879.26	16,466.75	16,026.80Quebec, P.Q	. .. 2,866.43	4,520.11	2,023.55Montreal, P.Q	... 27,194.70	30,481.81	18,420.22Ottawa, Ont	. . . 9,159.88	783.39	9,166.50Kingston, Ont	.. . 7,080.89	1,243.49	8,370.84Toronto, Ont	. . . 31,136.50	28,551.11	38,193.26Hamilton, Ont	... 374.32	1,637.89	2,965.50London, Ont	. . . 5,519.97	12,906.75	15,730.43North Bay, Ont	. . . 	1,257.22	300.00Winnipeg, Man	. . . 11,055.56	14,665.84	13,753.39Regina, Sask	... 77.65	3,492.14	475.03Saskatoon, Sask	. .. 9,069.55	837.61	5,740.24Calgary, Alta	.. . 960.98	7,959.22	1,592.00Edmonton, Alta	.. . 5,069.72	2,987.72	6,431.51Vancouver, B.C	... 33,215.11	25,563.13	21,240.57Head Office (U.S.A.) 	... 7,345.58	-	London, Eng	... 3,853.06	284.20	-Total 	.. . $187,328.85	$163,994.87	$182,487.98
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
General services-
135.	Departmental administration, $301,000.
136.	Information and educational service, including grant of $3,000 to Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition, $174,465.
137.	Markets and economics service, $253,450.
138.	Industrial development service, $590,000. Field services-
139.	Field services administration, $768,470.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. June 11, 1956