1956-06-07

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 7. 1956
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Ninth and tenth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. Henderson.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement on the tariff negotiations which have recently been successfully completed in Geneva. A detailed statement of these results was tabled in the house at eleven o'clock this morning, the time which was agreed to in advance with the other countries. For the convenience of hon. members I would suggest that that statement be printed as an appendix to Hansard.
I am happy to say that Canada has concluded new agreements at this conference with the United States and with 12 of our other trading partners in both Europe and Latin America. These agreements were signed on May 23 in Geneva on behalf of Canada by Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Canadian ambassador to NATO, who was also the chairman of the Canadian delegation. The new tariff


rates agreed to at this conference will not come into effect until the end of June at the earliest.
The new GATT agreements represent a further addition to the significant and substantial progress already achieved in previous GATT conferences in the reduction of tariff barriers throughout the world. The benefits obtained by Canada in these latest negotiations will lead to useful, practical gains for Canadian exporters of a wide range of products and in many markets. In addition to the concessions obtained directly by Canada, we will also benefit from all the concessions resulting from negotiations between the other participants, and this is one of the great advantages of a multilateral negotiation under GATT.
These new agreements will further strengthen the basis of confidence and cooperation so essential in world trade. It is appropriate at this time to reaffirm Canada's view of the usefulness of GATT as a framework for the conduct of trade and for the development of common trading policies. In this connection, the establishment of the organization for trade co-operation to administer GATT on a continuing basis would render the agreement more effective and would have a most encouraging influence on international relations.
The Canadian government has consistently supported this proposed organization and is prepared to take steps to provide for Canadian participation at the appropriate time. The United Kingdom has already indicated its acceptance, and it is our hope that all the members of GATT, and particularly the other leading trading countries whose support is essential, will similarly find it possible to join in its establishment.
The agreement concluded between Canada and the United States is one of the major agreements resulting from this conference. The concessions that could be made by the United States were limited by United States legislation to maximum tariff reductions of 15 per cent, spread over the next two years. Also, there were a number of items, particularly in the agricultural and fisheries field, on which the United States was not prepared to negotiate at this time. Within these limitations, however, we have concluded an agreement which should be most satisfactory to both countries. The fact that United States concessions would be implemented in three stages was, of course, taken fully into account by our negotiators in determining the nature of the concessions Canada could justifiably grant. Canada has obtained maximum concessions on a large number of products, including various chemicals, certain metals,

some agricultural items and a number of manufactured products and machinery. I am sure the house will welcome this agreement as a further step in our joint efforts to reduce trade barriers between Canada and the United States.
Canada has traditional and important trade relations with Europe and Latin America. It is our earnest desire and intention to continue to strengthen these close relations and to work with the countries of these areas in expanding our trade in both directions. As part of this general policy, Canada has concluded new agreements with Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Western Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden. Canadian exporters will obtain useful benefits from the concessions granted by these countries, many of which have made significant progress in the removal of import restrictions. Canada has also made agreements with Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti, which are open dollar markets for Canadian goods. I am confident that these various agreements will serve to emphasize the importance of our trade with the countries of these areas and will stimulate even closer connections between us.
In multilateral negotiations which involve reductions in most-favoured-nation tariffs, it is customary for both Canada and the United Kingdom to alter certain of the tariff preferences accorded to the other. Most of the reductions in margins of preference of interest to Canadian exporters in the United Kingdom are relatively minor. There were, of course, opportunities for informal exchanges of views on matters of common interest between Canada and the United Kingdom as the negotiations progressed.
To conclude, I would stress that Canada as a major trading nation has a vital interest in the expansion of world trade in an atmosphere of confidence and co-operation between countries. By entering into these latest negotiations under the auspices of GATT, the major trading countries have given renewed evidence of their intention to pursue the constructive policies that have been developed and strengthened through common effort.
As to the concessions granted by Canada, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will wish to make some comments.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister referred to a statement which he said should be published as an appendix to Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for that purpose?
GATT-Tariff Revisions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of detailed statement see appendix, pages 4834-41.)


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the tariff concessions made by Canada at this last tariff conference at Geneva, to which my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has referred, cover 180 items or sub-items in our customs tariff. Of these, 115 are reductions in the present most-favoured-nation rates of duty and 55 are undertakings not to raise existing rates of duty. For five items Canada undertook not to raise duties above certain specified rates higher than those actually in effect, but which in all five cases are lower than the rates previously agreed to under GATT. The remaining five items are reductions in the British preferential tariff, made unilaterally by Canada concurrent with reductions in the most-favoured-nation tariff.
Canada's concessions are set out in schedule V to the sixth protocol of supplementary concessions, and I should like to table copies of that schedule in English and French. This schedule consists of two parts, part I covering the most-favoured-nation tariff, and part II covering the British preferential tariff. The Canadian concessions will not come into effect immediately, but will be implemented at appropriate times having regard to the time at which other countries put their concessions into effect. I should make clear too that the Canadian concessions to each country will be brought into effect in one step.
Canada's total imports during the calendar year 1955 from all countries under the 115 items or sub-items on which the mostfavoured-nation tariff was reduced at Geneva amounted to $91 million. Canada's total imports during 1955 from all countries under the 60 items which were bound but not reduced amounted to $88 million.
The reductions in the most-favoured-nation tariff cover a wide range of products such as: textile machinery, orange juice, lettuce, newsprint, shelled oysters, shrimps, spectacle frames, cigars, sawmill machinery, adding machines, cash registers, road building machines, electrical precision apparatus, such as is used in oil refineries and chemical works, cameras and tobacco pipes.
Since GATT negotiations relate to the most-favoured-nation tariff there was no occasion to negotiate reductions of rates of duty under the British preferential tariff. Of course, some margins of preference in the Canadian tariff as well as in the tariffs of other commonwealth countries were reduced

House of Commons
in the course of negotiations with non-commonwealth countries. Of the items in which Canada reduced margins of preference those which covered the largest volume of trade were orange juice, electrical precision apparatus and textile machinery. The great bulk of Canadian imports of these products in 1955 were from non-commonwealth sources.
Part II of schedule V, which I am also tabling, contains five items. As I have mentioned, these provide for unilateral reductions by Canada in preferential rates of duty on certain goods on which the most-favourednation rate is also being reduced.



MR. DREW-MOTION OF NON-CONFIDENCE IN PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 6, 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.
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is naturally difficult to resume the debate. I said nothing today when the heart of parliament went out to the beloved wife of the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I shall say no more than this, that his life was an example of one who carried on whatever the consequences and he would have expected this house to follow the course of his own life.
Sir, yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) suggested that this motion, having been launched during the debate on the pipe line, should now be withdrawn. I am authorized to say that, in so far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition is concerned, that view cannot be accepted. As the days go by and we look over the things that took place, the unexplained change of ruling on June 1 becomes even more unexplainable. The need for this motion has not been erased by the termination of the pipe-line debate. That debate has gone the way of history. The prerogatives of parliament are abiding and must remain unimpaired. It is interesting that on an occasion such as this we should reread the pages of history. In 1628-on March 22 of that year-the Speaker had failed to listen to the demands of the members of the House of Commons to be heard on questions of privilege. Then suddenly the atmosphere changed. The king needed supplies.

Immediately every opportunity was given for the members of the house to speak. One Sir Robert Phelips-and I have his speech here- said this:
This day's debate makes me call to mind the custom of the Romans, who had a solemn feast once a year for their slaves, at which time they had liberty without exception to speak what they would, whereby to ease their afflicted minds; which being finished, they severally returned to their former servitude.
Those were spectacular words but what he meant was this. The rights of parliament cannot be impaired for the temporary advantage of anyone, including the crown. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the members of this house cannot stand idly by when their privileges and their rights are jettisoned, if only temporarily, at the will of a determined majority. You, Mr. Speaker, have read the duties and the responsibilities of a Speaker. No one summarized them better or epitomized them to a finer extent than did Mr. Speaker Lowther who, following his termination of office, wrote a book entitled "A Speaker's Commentaries" in which he set forth in a very few lines the duties and responsibilities of the Speaker:
The Speaker must decline to submit motions which infringe the rules; he must decide whether a motion is one of privilege or not; . . .
Then a little later:
The granting or withholding of the closure is another source of considerable anxiety to the occupant of the chair. Have the opposition had a full opportunity of stating their case? Have they made the best of their opportunity? Is there anything more which could be said usefully? Has the subject received its full quota of time in view of the total amount of time available for discussion? These and similar problems present themselves to the Speaker and must be solved in his own mind before he can accept a motion that "the question be now put". It is obvious that no hard and fast rule can be laid down on these matters, and that in each case the Speaker must use his best judgment and discretion.
And finally:
. . . he-
The Speaker.
-is the guardian of the privileges of the house as well as those of its members.


Mr. Carrick:: May I ask my hon. friend
a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to conduct this debate on a plane that is not controversial. If my hon. friend has observations to make, let him make them later.


Donald D. Carrick: May I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: You, Mr. Speaker, then did lay claim to our ancient and our undoubted rights and privileges, especially that

of freedom of speech in debate. In the United Kingdom Mr. Speaker, when he achieves his high office-and I quote-
. . . rigorously cuts off his party affiliations. He declares his honourable intention of being the impartial servant of the house as a whole, and in particular that he will do his best to safeguard the rights of minorities.
A moment ago in connection with closure I mentioned that the responsibility for the putting of the closure remains with the Speaker.


Walter Edward Harris: In the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: In 1925-the responsibility is set forth fully here-the responsibility remained with the Speaker and any changes that have been made since then do not remove that essential circumstance connected with the closure. In the United Kingdom no Speaker-and I again refer to Lord Ullswater -receives notes of communication from the members of the cabinet. He does not meet or communicate with them. As an inflexible policy-and it is of the essence of free debate in order to prevent anything in the nature of chaos within the House of Commons-he rules on the basis of rules, not with a consideration of the results that might flow from the rulings which he gives.
I say to you, sir-and I do so with deep feeling-that unless we maintain respect for parliament, democracy will wither and die. Parliament's supremacy demands the maintenance not only of the forms of parliamentary government but also of its soul. Without profound respect for the Chair the house would degenerate, in the heat of debate, into chaos and worse. What happened here on Friday, June 1, has but to be read in order to indicate how far removed from what parliament has a right to expect were the occurrences on that unforgettable morning.
On May 31, in accordance with the principles that are laid down by Viscount Ullswater, Your Honour decided that a serious question of privilege had been raised. You indicated the course to be followed by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). In a more or less incomplete manner you indicated that there were portions of the alleged statements that infringed the privileges of parliament and, indeed, your rights. One had only to look at the faces of Her Majesty's executive on the night of May 31 to realize how disturbed they were. The next morning, without giving the opposition a chance to speak, you, Mr. Speaker, peremptorily reversed, without argument, the decision you had made the night before, a course that was foreign to your usual course since assuming this high and honourable office as our first commoner. The Leader of the
House of Commons
Opposition (Mr. Drew) occupies a high position under our system of government. He rose in his place. There was nothing presumptuous in his words. As reported at page 4537 of Hansard he said this:


Mr. Drew:: Are you prepared to hear any discussion on that, because-
Then we have Mr. Speaker's answer.


Mr. Speaker:: No.


George Alexander Drew: -we had proceeded with diseussion on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a matter of privilege. Whether it is privilege or not, it is my responsibility to decide.
That was a decision, sir, you had made the night before, leaving only the question of finding an opportunity when you could speak regarding these statements which made references derogatory to yourself. So it goes down the page and there is no opportunity given. The bells ring, the decision is final, irrevocable, unarguable. There cannot be any debate. Mr. Speaker says:
The bells are ringing and the members are being called in.
The Leader of the Opposition says, "Mrt Speaker", and he is met by suggestions that he be quiet, and other interruptions. Finally the appeal that you suggested is submitted to the house. Sir, time and the calm retrospect of several days cannot erase from the hearts of those the feeling that this indeed was something beyond expectation. It never occurred before. It has no precedent in British history since 1640. It is one of those things that must be retraced, otherwise the pathways of expediency on June 1 will in the future become the highways along which those who desire to circumvent parliament will be able to do so. That is the great danger of dangerous precedent. Your Honour knows that is one of the great dangers of bad decisions in courts of law. This, however, is more than a decision affecting the rights of individuals. The decision you made on June 1, sir, is one that in the years ahead will constitute an opportunity for evil men to prevent parliament from protecting its right of free speech. It will make members in this house, on whichever side they sit, tenants at the will of the government of the day.
I am going to conclude, sir. There is always an anticlimax when events such as those of yesterday take place. I say again, if what took place on June 1 is to stand, the rights of free men in parliament will be at the whim of the Speaker and our Canadian system will become, and indeed the occupant of the Chair will become, the pliant creature of a dominant majority. Majorities are no better than minorities. But, sir, minorities have it not in their power ta

House of Commons
alter the rules to meet the demands of expediency for them. Majorities dare not be permitted to have written into the Journals of the House of Commons a precedent that, for all time to come, will stand as an accusing finger to the practice of the democratic and parliamentary way of life.
Members have a right to know that the rules of the house will be observed and not be dependent upon the caprice of the majority. They have the right to know that the rules will not be reversed by the demands of expediency. They have a right to ask that the decisions of today shall not be reversed tomorrow by the presiding officer, whatever the consequences may be to the majority in this house. We have the right to demand that in the future frustrated ministers will think of the consequences to Mr. Speaker if at any time by overt demand or subtle compulsion they place him in a position where he must depart from what, on the basis of his wide experience, he had determined was the right course to follow. Sir, if the rules under which parliament operates, if the decisions of today in a deliberative, orderly assembly, are to be reversed tomorrow by the presiding officer who made an earlier decision, then we shall have chaos. If the accumulated usages and precedents of the past can be set aside when they are detrimental to the government of the day, then parliament will be placed where respect and dignity will be supplanted by disrespect and disorder.
It may be that we will have to consider a reform in the manner of the choice of Mr. Speaker in order to give him that detachment which British precedent and British ancient usages have assured for the Speaker. It will be difficult under our system to bring about anything of a similar nature to a permanent appointment such as is made in Great Britain because of the fact that there must be recognition in our country of the dual contribution of those of French and British origin. But certainly we dare not let the situation go unchallenged whereby a Speaker at any time can be permitted to be placed in a position where power and authority, whether directly or indirectly applied, can bring about such an event as happened here the other day. There is no other way in which this matter can be brought before the house except through the motion that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Is the Prime Minister not in a position now to give that leadership which will remove those pages, as it were, from the records of parliament? Charles I tore out two pages of the Journals. Let us not in 1956 have written into these Journals the denial of the usages of the past and the return to supreme authoritarianism

of a majority uncontrolled. This motion is designed to assure that in the future parliament will never again find itself trammelled by the desires of a powerful cabinet, thereby placing Mr. Speaker in a position undeniably difficult and destructive of that authority and prestige which, however much it had been built up, has been seriously diminished as the result of what took place.
I speak from the heart when I say this. What happened on June 1, Mr. Speaker, caused a resentment, a feeling of frustration in the hearts of hon. members, to see the usages of 300 years thrown out of the way for a pipe line. To me, parliament and the maintenance of its supremacy, its authority, its dignity, are above the fortunes of a pipe line.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it is about 50 years since I first began taking part in debates. I have always entered a debate gladly, only wanting the opportunity to get at my opponent. I wish that were so today, because I rise today to take part in this debate solely from a sense of duty. When I spoke here a little over a week ago I tried to point out to this house where we were drifting. I thought there was an opportunity to stop and take a look before we took the next step. The house did not stop. We proceeded with the measure that was before us, the pipe lines bill. The pipe lines bill has now passed. It passed through this house and I understand it has been passed by the other place, and in a few moments I suppose it will get royal assent.
We passed it, but what price have we paid for it. This, sir, is a part of the price, a motion made in this House of Commons to censure the Speaker, something that never happened and I suppose was never thought of before in a Canadian parliament. That is too great a price to pay for any bill that might come before this house. What are a few paltry million dollars, in comparison with the legacy that has been left us in forcing the measure through the House of Commons?
Until the regrettable events of the past few weeks I held Your Honour in the highest esteem. I think you, sir, must have known how high my esteem was. Since you took over your office in 1953 I felt increasingly that you had most, if not all, of the attributes that go to the making of a great Speaker. I felt that you, sir, could very well be the greatest Speaker that this parliament has had since the late Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux filled the high office that you now hold. It was not my pleasure to know the late Mr. Lemieux but I did know a man who knew him very well, the first leader of this party, the late

J. S. Woodsworth, and he never tired of singing his praises as a great man, a great Speaker, whom it was an honour to know and an honour to serve under, or perhaps I should say to serve with.
Will you excuse me, sir, if I mention some of the attributes which I think you have for the position you hold, or which at least I thought you had. You have a fine presence and, if you allow me to say so, a great charm of manner. You are equally fluent in both of the official languages of this house. You have industry, perhaps at times a little too much. In any case, you had sufficient industry to familiarize yourself with the rules of this house and I am satisfied sir, that you know the rules of this house better than any Speaker that has been here in my time. That, sir, was my position until the recent debate on the pipe line legislation began, and then my hopes began to fade until the proceedings of the house last Friday morning sent them crashing at my feet.
It is because of the proceedings of the house of last Friday morning that I believe the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition last Monday has become a necessity and, because it has become a necessity, it has become my duty to support it.
Some statements that I made in the house at various times have been referred to in this debate and in the one before it, but I am afraid my statements were used to give an altogether different impression from what I intended to convey when I made them. When he spoke to the motion before us the Prime Minister referred to a statement I made in this house in discussing a matter on January 28, 1949. My remarks, quoted by the Prime Minister, may be found at page 41 of Hansard of 1949. At that time I used these words in supporting the motion that was then before the house:
Surely this is a question of orderly procedure in parliament, and whether we agree with it or not is a matter to be decided by the vote of parliament.
I certainly made that statement, and it was a proper one to make at that time; but if the Prime Minister meant when he quoted that statement that I should have supported the proceedings, if one can call them proceedings, that took place in the house last Friday, well, I am afraid he has not compared what was before the house on those two occasions.
Let me quickly point out what we were dealing with in 1949. The session opened just after the previous election and the Prime Minister moved, after giving due notice, mind you, due notice that is required by the
House of Commons
rules of this house, that after a certain date government business would take precedence over all other business.
I think the reason for the motion was that the government wanted to get on with the terms under which Newfoundland would enter confederation and everything was in order. It was so much in order, in fact, that after getting the views of the members of the house the Prime Minister himself suggested there be some changes made in the dates. Those changes were made and it was for that reason I said:
Surely this is a question of orderly procedure in parliament, and whether we agree with it or not is a matter to be decided by the vote of parliament.
These words appear at page 41 of Hansard for January 28, 1949. And then I went on to say:
I think every hon. member, I suppose at least every hon. member on this side of the house, regrets that the government has felt it necessary to postpone the debate on the speech from the throne, or rather to postpone it if it is not finished by the end of next week. That is a longer time than the government suggested at first, and that in itself is one of the hallmarks of democratic procedure. There has been a compromise between the two extremes. If the government did not get all they expected to get or wished to get in the first instance, the opposition got at least some of what it wanted.
Surely there is no comparison between that occasion and this one. I wish now to read from Hansard of June 1, 1956, from a statement made by Mr. Speaker:
Now, the house is master of its own rules and it is my right to submit a matter to the house. I intend at the moment to submit to the house that, in my view, the house should revert to the position where it was yesterday when I was brought back to the chair to receive the chairman's report at 5.15.
I deny, sir, that it is your right or the right of any Speaker to put matters before this house excepting the matters that are given to you by the house to put before the house. We cannot carry on business here if the Speaker of the house can come into the house at any time and say "I think we had better revert to some other order of business," or "I made a mistake and I think we should try to rectify that. Now let us go back to where we were yesterday or the day before yesterday or last week or the week before that." How in the world can the business of the house be carried on in that way?
And then the Speaker went on to say, as reported at page 4540 of Hansard for June 1, 1956:
I know what the hon. member says with respect to this motion is correct. I have indicated to the house I feel that the house should not suffer any prejudice for what I consider to be a serious mistake which I made yesterday. I say that the house is master of its own procedure. No one

House of Commons
should contradict that', everybody knows that that is so, and it is my right to submit a matter to the house and that is what I propose to do.
Sir, I could not disagree with you more definitely than when you make that statement. I have already said it is not your right to place matters before this house excepting such matters as are given you by the members of this house to place before it. I am afraid that is where some of our trouble stems from. For some reason or other you made the passage of business through this house your concern. I submit it is none of your concern; it is the concern of the government. Your concern is to hold the balance as between the rights of the opposition and the rights of the government as matters proceed.
May I refer for a moment to the question of closure. You know, there were some terribly amusing things said with regard to this closure-in regard to why it was brought about-at least they would have been funny if the matter were not so tragic. I think I heard the Minister of Finance, if my memory serves me right and if he contradicts me I will take it all back, say that closure was invoked when it was because I think it was the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had said the opposition was going to oppose this bill with everything it had, or some words to that effect, and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) had made a somewhat similar statement.
Well, boasting of that kind is a juvenile sort of thing and I do not hold with it; but, sir, it is not a reason for introducing closure. Closure invoked at that stage anticipated that something might happen in this house. We do not carry on the business of this house in anticipation of what may happen. We carry on the business of the house on the basis of what happens in the house. As I said the other day, that is where the initial mistake was made.
Hon. members opposite accused the opposition of criticizing the government's pipe-line bill. What in the world do you think the opposition was sent here for, to help the government? No, they were sent here to oppose and, if the opposition did not oppose, the government would also criticize them.
Let us suppose that instead of opposing the pipe-line bill the opposition had let it go through parliament without any opposition at all. What would government supporters be saying as they went around the country? Let us suppose this bill was passed unanimously-the opposition did not like it very well but then they had no alternative so they said they would let it go through. The government damns the opposition for
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
opposing it but it would also ridicule the opposition if they agreed with the government.
Now, the purpose of an opposition is to oppose. I think it was Sir Winston Churchill's father who said at one time that if the opposition ever found itself in a position where it had to approve of something that the government was doing it ought to do it with a kick rather than a pat.
There is a citation in Beauchesne's second edition-I imagine all hon. members have a copy of this book-and 1 wish hon. members opposite would read and study it. I read this citation in this house some years ago and I propose to read it again now. I am referring to citation 900 which appears at page 282. I believe it is from Hatsell's book on parliamentary procedure or something of that nature. The citation reads as follows:
So far the maxim is certainly true and founded on good sense that as it is always in the power of the majority by their numbers to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves from similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules and proceedings which have been found necessary from time to time and are become the standing orders of the house, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can alone be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
Could anything be truer than those last words I read, "large and successful majorities"? So large and so successful have the government majority been that they consider that nothing is to be allowed to stand in the way of what they want to do even if they have to tear to shreds the rules and procedures of this house in the doing.
I agree that in a certain sense parliament must always decide, but it must decide according to the rules. If the rules can be changed from day to day, from hour to hour and from week to week the minority has no protection whatsoever. If the position taken by the Speaker of this house is to prevail, it can lead to nothing else than that the majority in this house can at any time impose its will upon the house and the minority, and the opposition which was sent here by the electors of this country in the same way as the members of the government were sent may as well go home. We will have no business here, we will have no function to perform, there will be nothing for us to do. The government has taken it upon itself to rule by sheer force without regard to the rules and procedures which have come down to us through the years.
I am under no illusion as to what will happen to this motion when it comes before

the house for a vote. Undoubtedly it will be defeated, but that will not be the end of the issues which have been raised on it. I should like to say to the government that they may not always be here; the Liberal party may not always be where they are now. No matter how permanent things may look, change is the law of life.
We cannot have ministers coming into this house and introducing bills and giving notice of closure at the time of doing so. But that is the precedent which any minister can follow from now on. We have adopted that as the method to be followed in this house. From now on a minister can bring in a bill or a resolution preceding a bill and at the same time give notice of closure. Why? Because he has heard that the hon. member for-we could say any place you like-is going to oppose it, or that the opposition are going to oppose it. Because the opposition are going to do the thing they were sent here to do, the minister by closure will say that they will try to prevent them doing it. That is one of the things which will inevitably happen because of what has taken place here during the past few weeks.
As I said before, if something is not done, any Speaker at any future time can say, "I believe I made a mistake and you have to go back to where we were yesterday, or the day before, or the week before." Where will we be if we carry on business in that fashion? But that is the precedent we have made ourselves, and parliament is the creature of precedent. The decision taken today becomes a precedent for other decisions tomorrow.
I would say to the government, or whoever may be the government after the next election, or if there is not an election before the next session of parliament it should be done at the next session, that they should set up a committee on procedure to propose changes-they may not be very material ones and I do not think material ones are needed- in regard to these matters which have brought the Canadian parliament to the position it is in today, with the hope that it will never happen again. I say that that should be done at the next session of this house, if there is one before there is an election.
If there is an election before another session is called I will not be here and I may not be here at the next session even if there is no election. I would hate to see this parliament, where I have spent so many of my days, degenerate into a rabble where decisions were made where the Speaker, knowing what the decision would be, would
House of Commons
say, "Parliament will decide." That means only one thing, that the government will decide.
As I said when I rose to speak on this motion, I have never spoken with less relish when putting my views before an audience, call it that or whatever other word is suitable, but I felt that I had to make my position clear. When the motion is put I shall vote for it, not in any hope that it is going to carry or that it will do very much good. But we have to make our protest. I should like to suggest to those who will be here at the next session or to those who will be here when the next parliament assembles that they set right the wrongs which we have done to parliament during the last three weeks.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence my remarks in this serious debate with a quotation from what was said by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada at the convocation ceremonies held at the University of Toronto a short while ago. The chief justice is reported to have said:
Unless we are ever vigilant of threats to our individual rights, the priceless heritage that is Canada's will be maimed and disfigured, if not destroyed.
I think remarks of that tenor have been said to graduating classes of universities down through the years until part and parcel of our heritage has been such references to the maintenance of our freedom. What is the priceless heritage about which Canadians are so concerned? It is the right of free speech, a free press, free elections, freedom of assembly, freedom to organize. These are the things that we mean and think of when we talk about our priceless heritage of freedom. Here in parliament we find that freedom is the central part of this system. As Ivor Jennings has pointed out, "so much of the history of freedom is part of the history of parliament that freedom and parliamentary government are often considered to be the same thing."
That is why we have reached the stage in our proceedings in parliament of putting forward and discussing a motion of censure, because we have felt that parliamentary government has been endangered and that in the endangering of our parliamentary government our very freedom has been endangered. The citadel of freedom has been assaulted from within right here in the House of Commons, and in the painful and tragic events of this week and on black Friday, the 1st of June, the attack from within on

House of Commons
parliament resulted in the humiliation of the Speaker and the humiliation of parliament itself.
It is one of the grave moments in Canadian history and, as with others who have spoken, it is with regret that I engage in a debate of this nature. I never expected that we would reach this stage in Canada when we would have to look closely at our parliamentary system to see whether or not it was sound. I always thought that it was so soundly based that nothing could shatter it. It has been pointed out that the origin of our troubles arose at 5.15 last Thursday. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) drew our attention to that the other day and indicated that at that moment I was the one who rose to my feet on a point of order and because of that the normal routine was upset.
May I point out very briefly that my point of order, dismissed after the interval of the supper hour by the Speaker as being academic and subsequently called an academic point by the Prime Minister, was nevertheless in my opinion then and now a matter of profound importance to the position of Speaker in this House of Commons. I seized the first opportunity I had in the course of the debate to bring to the attention of the Speaker the point of order, following the lines that he has told us are the essentials of a point of order. The Speaker's own words are that the function of a point of order is to bring to the attention of the Speaker a matter which he did not himself perceive.
I brought to the Speaker's attention a matter which he did not himself perceive at the time or had forgotten, and I thought I was performing a duty in endeavouring to replace in the Speaker's hand something that he had let slip to the chairman of the committee because I believe that here in the House of Commons it is the Speaker's interpretation of the rules that should be decisive and not the interpretation of the rules as determined by one or other of our chairmen of committees. However, it was dismissed as academic. The Prime Minister pointed out that I was persistent in asking for a vote on the Speaker's ruling. I admit I was persistent and under similar circumstances I would be persistent again because I thought I was being brushed aside. So much for that.
The date of the commencement of the disaster that befell parliament was not at 5.15 on last Thursday but on the 24th of May. It was on the 24th of May that w*e entered upon the slippery slope that led down to destruction because that was the day when, as some member of the press

gallery so aptly put it, closure by thumbscrew was applied. We had had earlier on the resolution stage the imposition of closure, which we resisted and disliked. On the second reading stage we had the imposition of closure, which we resisted. But in the committee stage when the first clause of the bill was brought before us closure by thumbscrew was applied, the right of speech was forbidden to members of parliament, and anger and dismay swept through the house.
It was on that occasion that the chairman of the committee made his ruling with regard to the interpretation of the word "consideration", a word never before interpreted by a Speaker in the House of Commons. There was no precedent for guidance. It was in consideration of these two matters that I subsequently brought to the Speaker's attention the point of order that I raised on the Thursday. But it was the imposition of closure that brought about all the sorry circumstances that succeeded.
I want to digress for a minute or two to discuss closure as it is applied in England because so many references have been made to the procedure there and the implication has been made that it is a normal course of procedure in England. That, sir, is not so. People who talk about closure being applied in England must first discuss and define such matters as the previous question, allocation of time and the guillotine before they can relate that to what happens here under our system of closure. But may I point out that on the 5th of June the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said, as found at page 4743 of Hansard:
From 1945 to 1951, which was the period when the Socialist government was in power in the United Kingdom, the maximum time actually devoted to the consideration of any government money bill by the House of Commons during that period of six years was 21 hours and 25 minutes.
I presume he means that any bill which authorizes the use of public funds is a money bill. I would hope that you would keep in your mind that period from 1945 to 1951 and the maximum time the minister gave of 21 hours and 25 minutes for a money bill. If you will bear with me, I will direct your attention to the fact that in the British House of Commons in June of 1948-1 will give references, which were not given by the minister-as found in volume 451, column 2175 to column 2658 of British Hansard, a bill was discussed there called, appropriately enough, the gas bill. It had been introduced, discussed on second reading and was in the committee stage and the report stage on the 9th of June through to the early hours of the 10th of June in a continuous sitting of parliament. They have no recess for the supper hour. For 16

hours, just in that one stage, the committee stage and the report stage, the bill was discussed. That discussion in the House of Commons had been preceded by not1 days or weeks but months of sittings in a standing committee, including in that standing committee several all-night sittings. I ask if you relate that fact to the minister's statement that the longest time ever spent on a money bill in the House of Commons was 21 hours and 25 minutes-if you can relate those two statements- and can place any credence in the suggestion that the minister's statement is accurate. I will leave it to you to make your own choice.
Let me point out this further fact. The minister might have gone a step further and looked at the transport bill in 1952, volume 508, column 47, of the British Hansard-discussed on November 24, 1952. On that occasion the British system of closure that allocates time was imposed at the commencement of the committee sittings and the guillotine as they call it was introduced. It was introduced because of their experience with that gas bill in 1948. Under that system of closure they allowed seven days on the committee stage. That was, of course, preceded by the usual introduction and second reading events. Under that system they allowed seven days in the committee for a total of 45J to 49 hours. In our committee sittings we had five days under closure by thumbscrew for a total of 25 hours and the extra three that we got on the night of the voting. I am not excluding there any time that we may have spent on other matters. That guillotine motion introduced in England at the commencement of their committee sittings on the transport bill in 1952 was debated for almost seven hours, preceded by one division and concluded by four divisions. The Times wrote an article about it which you may find in the course of the debate. Anyone who wants to discover whether or not closure is accepted as the normal practice in England might very well read that debate of 1952. He will discover that it is abhorred by the British House of Commons. He will also discover that it is not anything like the type of closure that we had here.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in his remarks said this:
That country,-
He was referring to England.
-Mr. Speaker, the home of parliamentary freedom, also understands the necessities of parliamentary government, the responsibilities and rights of the government as well as of the opposition.
Any study of the British Hansard indicates that fact. In an earlier debate I ran across the remarks of Lloyd George who, as you know, spent 50 years in the House of Commons in England. He said that there stood
House of Commons
out in his memory one event when he, along with six others, went into the opposition lobby and were outvoted by the tremendous majority of over 600 who went into the government lobby under the system that they have of voting. He said that vast majorities wither away and die. He said that he had lived to see the day when that vast majority had disappeared and he himself had come in on the government side.
Mr. Speaker, the root of the matter that we are discussing here is the independence of the Speaker. We have looked to the Speaker to be the guardian of our liberties. That volume of May that we have been discussing so frequently during the last two or three weeks is dedicated to the Speakers of the commonwealth who uphold in common the high tradition of parliament. It is that independence with which we are so much concerned. In the independence of the Speaker we believe we see the protection of the minority groups in parliament. Of course the man who set the greatest example in England was Mr. Speaker Onslow, in 1727. This shows the long tradition of the independence of the Speaker. Mr. Onslow was Speaker for 33 years. In Kenneth Mackenzie's book on "The English Parliament" you will find these words:
Onslow's show of independence at the outset of his career as Speaker did not belie his subsequent conduct. Throughout his 33 years' tenure of the Speakership he exhibited an unflinching attitude of independence towards the government, and he enforced the rules of procedure without respect of persons. 'The forms of proceedings', he held, 'as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the action of ministers, and they were in many instances a shelter and a protection to the minority against the attempts of power'. Only by strict adherence to the rules of procedure could the minority be protected from those 'irregularities and abuses which these forms are intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities'. Indeed, so great was Onslow's attachment to forms that Horace Walpole said that 'it often made him troublesome in matters of higher moment'. There could hardly be better testimony to Onslow's indifference to ministerial convenience.
That, I submit, represents the state of independence that we expect of the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons. Why are we so much interested in that matter? Because, as I said earlier, this is the citadel of our freedom. We have a long tradition handed down from our ancestors. Sir Ivor Jennings in his book "The Queen's Government" speaks about the behaviour of the ordinary Englishman. The same thing may well be said about the ordinary Canadian. Sir Ivor Jennings said this:
He is not only a free man; he is truculently free. He is, perhaps, the most law-abiding citizen in the world, particularly when the law seems to him to be sensible; but no man is more ready

House of Commons
to take offence when the law is broken. He does not obey orders because they are given by some person in authority: He obeys orders when they are lawful orders issued by a person who has legal authority to issue them. John Hampden, gentleman of Buckinghamshire, is one of our national heroes; and Hampden has written his name into history because he refused to pay a tax of 20 shillings, imposed upon him by the sheriff in accordance with orders from the king. He was charged before the Exchequer Chamber in the Great Case of Shipmoney. Seven judges found against him and five in his favour; but later parliament reversed the verdict. The important point, though, was that Hampden refused to obey an order that he thought to be unlawful and thereby helped to establish a tradition.
I think that Canadians, equally with Englishmen, are truculently free. I think that some of the exasperation shown in this house last Friday was due to that fact. No man is more ready to take offence when the law is broken. Last Thursday and Friday, and on other occasions, we thought that the law- the rules of procedure of the House of Commons-was being broken. All of this occurrence here leads, in my opinion, to the necessity for a study of the parliamentary system. I think we have been taking things too much for granted. I think that our professors of history, our writers on political science and our teachers in the schools as well as members of parliament themselves and others must examine our parliamentary system much more closely. I think we are inclined to misunderstand the various operations of it. We fail to understand sometimes the party system. I would hope that members of the government, as well as those on the opposition side, would study and reflect upon Professor Jennings' two volumes, one called "Parliament" and the other "Cabinet Government", in which he sets out the basis of our system of parliamentary government.
He says with regard to the parties that come into the house;
The House of Commons is the oratorical battleground of those parties. The one supports and the other opposes the government. The one defends a policy and the other puts forward another. Any defect of administration, any weakness of principle or defect of practice, any blunder of politics, is soon brought to light and exhibited to the world.
The functions which Bagehot described are thus exercised through the competition of government and opposition. The "mind of the people" is expressed in different ways and through different forms because it is not and cannot be a single mind. Political education is real education because at least two points of view are always being put, and the elector has to choose between them. The other side has power to speak and therefore can and must be heard. The opposition demands that policies be formulated openly and consequences of policies revealed.
Parliament compels the government to defend itself by open and rational argument; but it also compels the opposition to state what is the alternative and, if that alternative be plausible, to attempt to carry it out. The majority does not override the minority roughshod, because the

habits of centuries have created a free people, disliking oppression even of minorities. Members of parliament, to quote Milton again, know the people of England to be a free people, and themselves the representatives of that freedom.
I think the function of the opposition in parliament is misunderstood. Looking back I find that four years ago I spoke in the House of Commons, although I had not been here very long. At that time some matter came up striking at the rights of members in this house and I entered into the debate. Here is what Ivor Jennings says, in his book "Cabinet Government,,>
on the importance of the opposition :
It is not untrue to say that the most important part of parliament is the opposition in the House of Commons. The function of parliament is not to govern but to criticize. Its criticism, too, is directed not so much towards a fundamental modification of the government's policy as towards the education of public opinion. The government's majority exists to support the government. The function of the opposition is to secure a majority against the government at the next general election and thus to replace the government. This does not imply that a government may not be defeated in the House of Commons. Nor does it imply that parliamentary criticism may not persuade the government to modify, or even to withdraw, its proposals. These qualifications are important; but they do not destroy the truth of the principle that the government governs and the opposition criticises. Failure to understand this simple principle is one of the causes of the failure of so many of the progeny of the mother of parliaments and of the suppression of parliamentary government by dictatorships.
Then, as a final quotation from Ivor Jennings, I have this one:
The tradition of parliament that "His Majesty's Opposition" shall not be oppressed is not a tradition merely; it rests on policy. Given free elections, an opposition that is not allowed to oppose in parliament is by that fact supplied with arguments for opposition in the country. If it can be asserted that the government fears criticism, it can be suggested with considerable force that there is ground for criticism. The opposition is given a forum in parliament because if it were not it would be given a convincing argument in the forum of the country.
Mr. Speaker, an understanding of parliament is essential. I hope that out of this trouble that has arisen here the people of Canada will give much closer attention than they have given during the last few years to an understanding of parliament. We are suffering from the war years. This is an aftermath of the war. During the war years we granted full power to the government, and that government has been reluctant to relinquish that full power. We have fallen into a state of complacency with regard to our system of government.
I am going to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a quotation from Kenneth Mackenzie's book "The English Parliament". On the first page

there is a quotation from a broadcast delivered in February 1946 by Edward R. Murrow. This was just at the conclusion of the war. It says:
I doubt that the most important thing was Dunkirk or the Battle of Britain, El Alamein or Stalingrad. Not even the landings in Normandy or the great blows struck by British and American bombers. Historians may decide that any one of these events was decisive, but I am persuaded that the most important thing that happened in Britain was that this nation chose to win or lose this war under the established rules of parliamentary procedure. It feared Nazism, but did not choose to imitate it. The government was given dictatorial power, but it was used with restraint, and the House of Commons was ever vigilant.
I think that, sir, sums up the attitude that I have towards this great institution. During the last two or three weeks here I have wondered why so many men whom I have known in this house, men. who are so moderate in their day to day life, have become so aroused over the events that have occurred during that time. It struck me that when moderate men are aroused to such an intensity of feeling there must be something fundamentally wrong. I have seen other men less able to control their feelings quickly aroused over matters which were trifling. But when moderate men are moved to the very core of their being, then I say that forces are being unleashed in the country that are not subject to easy control. This is a serious situation in the history of our country when moderate men are moved as they were moved during the last two weeks.
We have passed through a period of Canadian history that will not be forgotten. I do not think the recent occurrences can be cured by this parliament. I think the wounds will not be healed except over a long passage of time. I think that it will take a great deal of effort to re-establish the authority of parliament as we used to understand it, and to re-establish the prestige and authority of the House of Commons. We will have great difficulty over the ensuing years in maintaining that thing that we prize so highly, our way of life.
We have been talking and fighting wars over this question of maintaining our way of life. We have said communism is wrong; nazism is wrong and Kaiser Wilhelm with his military dictatorship was wrong. We said, though we were not very eloquent about it perhaps as ordinary citizens, that we preferred the British way, the Canadian way. We were thinking surely, as young men in days gone by, of things like these which we accepted for granted, and we thought then we enjoyed in our own country freedom from any type of oppression. Nothing has shaken me more in the course of my life than the events of the last two weeks and the threat,
House of Commons
as I see it, to that freedom which has been the one thing that we have been working to preserve throughout the last two generations.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, there have been many members who, in the course of this debate, have said this is a tragedy. That is so, and in a personal way. Some French writer, whose name escapes me, said that tragedy lies not in the conflict of right with wrong but in the conflict of right with right. You, sir, believed that you were right; we believed that we were right, and that difference which divides us is not something superficial. It is a difference which digs deep into the vitals of this House of Commons.
We here are parliamentarians. That means we have concern, respect, and even veneration for this house. We have these things not only in our bones but in the marrow of our bones. I doubt whether there is any member in this house who cannot number amongst his ancestors some who died that free institutions such as this should prevail. Therefore anything which hurts them hurts these things we cherish most.
This is the focal point of our freedom. This house is the focal point of our democracy, that form of government about which it has been so often said, it is the most difficult that the wit of man has yet devised. We have been told that democracy is slow, cumbersome, lethargic, even venal and corrupt; yet what we ought never to forget is that these charges fade into nothingness beside this one fact.
Any member of this House of Commons has the right to bring to the floor of the house the plea of the humblest person in Canada for justice. There is the greatness of parliament. Anything which tarnishes that greatness hurts not only us but every individual in this country.
I say, this house is the focal point of our democracy. The Speaker, then, is the focal point of the House of Commons, and we have given him the authority, we have placed in his hands the dignity and the integrity of the House of Commons. In the past, sir, in this parliament we have been served well. I am not going to refer to the remarks which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) made about Your Honour because largely I concur in them. You had raised the prestige of the Speakership; you were our Speaker. Some of us had known you for many years and through that time we had a great liking for you, in the chair and out of it. I had hoped that perhaps even
*4804

House of Commons
on the very periphery I might have been numbered amongst your friends. I had for you, as had others, a genuine respect even when I thought you were at times wrong. And now, what has happened to make us rise in our places and disown you?
Some little time ago the Prime Minister said that what had happened had been frustrating. He used that word on several occasions in the course of his remarks, and I well believe him; but, as the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway pointed out this afternoon, it is our bounden duty, when we think the government is wrong, to frustrate it in every way possible within the rules of parliament, and we did so. But the remark of the Prime Minister was revealing in another way. He said he was frustrated. He showed by that remark, I suggest, that there was a gap in his political education; for I think [DOT]one of the best pieces of apprenticeship any man can serve before he takes his place in government is to be in the ranks of the [DOT]opposition.
I have been here for some 12 or 13 years. I have had my own ideas of the sort of legislation which ought to be on our statute books to improve the conditions of the people of this country, and for month after month and year after year I have been frustrated but always, sir, within the rules of parliament, always so that I could not say I was unjustly done by. Frustration is no excuse for what happened last week. The tragedy of it is, sir, that you are perhaps the unconscious victim of that frustration.
Some days ago, also during the course of this debate, I rose in my place because I was disturbed at what was happening. I believed there was a corrosion taking place in the foundations of the Speakership. Members of parliament on this side of the house were rising on points of order which may or may not have been legitimate. We thought they were, and I maintained then and I maintain now it was the duty of the Prime Minister or the leader of the house to combat those points of order if they thought they were wrong. Instead, we were met with silence; and you, sir, were placed in the almost intolerable position where, in our eyes, you were acting not only as counsel for the defence, but you were acting as the judge. Time and time again this happened while the government sat silent, and you were becoming more and more embroiled in what appeared almost like partisan politics. You were being used by the silence of the government, and now you are being sacrificed through the silence of the Prime Minister.
I believe, sir, that last week you made a serious mistake. You made a mistake which

is almost unforgivable because you impaired the rights of the opposition as we saw them. At best you were guilty of a lapse of judgment, and perhaps we can make the excuse for you, sir, who cannot speak, that you were under strain, under tension which at times must have been great; but a mistake was made. There was a motion in the possession of the house, and then it was removed by what I have already referred to as brute majority. The rules were changed in the middle, sir.
I believe you to have been wrong in doing that, but I believe the government were even more wrong, if they had any respect for parliament, in allowing your error to prevail. Certain members of the government must have discussed the situation on Thursday night or Friday morning. There was a way open to them-a legitimate, proper and honest way open to them-but silence was maintained and that silence was nothing but cold cruelty on the part of the Prime Minister, who in my judgment, lost in his own sense of frustration, sacrificed our Speaker in this House of Commons. Perhaps that may now be his manner of doing things, but I hope that is not so ever again in the future.
There were other things which happened, however, which make me believe this might be so. We had the situation of which you, Mr. Speaker, can know nothing because this happened in committee, where a minister of the crown moved that clause 1 be postponed-


Mr. Coldwell:: Further consideration.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: -that further consideration of it be postponed, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar points out. That was wrong by the rules of this house. The Prime Minister must have known of this wrongdoing on the part of his colleague, yet apparently it was not only condoned but it was connived at. There is only one belief I have and it is this, that the Prime Minister had to violate the rules of this parliament because he could not govern with them; and, sir, you are in the tragic position where we believe that you did not carry out the rules fairly, equitably and justly. But the primary blame I still place upon the Prime Minister.
I am angry even yet, and I hope our anger will not diminish as days go by. I am angry at what has happened to this House of Commons. I am angry with the way the government has treated the position which you hold. I am dismayed, sir, at what you did, no matter what the reasons may be and no matter what the excuses may be. I am dismayed that these wretched precedents which have been established will go on the official

records of this house to guide some government in the future to commit the same sort of iniquity that was perpetrated upon us in the last week.
I regret, sir, that you for whom I have had this respect find yourself in the position in which you are today. I have tried to understand your position; I hope, sir, that you will try to understand our position and realize how intolerable it is.
There is going to be a vote in this house and that vote will be decided by cold numbers. But no matter how it is decided it is not going to help in any way the malaise which afflicts this House of Commons now. I know no cure for it unless there be this. I think there is only one solution in honour, and that is for the Prime Minister of Canada to go to the people of Canada and justify his debauchery of the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, every hon. member who has risen in this debate has explained how distasteful the task he has been given is to him, yet I rise because I feel it is my duty to explain my own feelings in this regard.
I regret that a motion expressing the view that the recent actions of Mr. Speaker in improperly reversing his own decision without notice, in repeatedly refusing to allow members to address the house on occasions when it was their right to do so, and in subordinating the rights of the house to the will of the government has become necessary.
Yesterday the Prime Minister endeavoured to give the impression that there were many on this side of the house who did not feel that the motion was either necessary or warranted. I wonder where the Prime Minister has been during the past two or three weeks. I wonder where he has been mentally and in spirit, because physically he has been sitting in his seat listening to the debate and he has risen in his place to lead the vote of the government perhaps 15 or 16 times in appeals from the rulings of the Chair or in votes to sustain the ruling of the chairman of committee. Surely that in itself is an indication that there are many hon. members in this chamber who have doubted the correctness of the decisions which have been given by the Chair, and that in itself is an indication that there is a widespread feeling of non-confidence in the present occupants of the chair.
This afternoon we have listened to thoughtful and eloquent speeches given by hon. members on this side of the house who have been trained in the profession of law. In precise legal language they have pointed out to this chamber where errors and mistakes
House of Commons
have been made, where the traditions of long ago have been violated. I rise merely as a lay member, as one not trained in the law. I have never taken a very keen interest in the rules of procedure of this house, but I have been hurt and wounded to the quick during the past few weeks. I feel it is incumbent upon me to express my feelings in that respect.
I appreciate deeply the ordeal to which Mr. Speaker is now being subjected. It must be extremely difficult for the Speaker or his deputy to remain in the chair and hear charges levelled against him as member after member rises in his place and states that he has lost confidence in the Speaker. It is not entirely of the Speaker's making, although I do feel he has exposed himself by his actions to grave criticism. The traditions of the office of Speaker, as has been pointed out this afternoon, are very high, and the position the Speaker holds is a great one; for he not only presides over the proceedings of this house but he must protect the liberties and rights of parliament in debate.
You, sir, sit alone in your great chair, dressed in your robes, which contribute to your authority and your dignity. But those robes are something more than decorative aids to authority. They emphasize the loneliness, which has been referred to, and the impartiality of your office. We are not draped in gowns, but you are there distinct and alone and impartial. You have no direct communication with individual members of this house.
On great national occasions we gather in public places and in churches and we sing the national anthem and other hymns and songs suitable to those particular occasions. There is one anthem which I recall, the first line of which is, "What do I owe?" It refers in a rhetorical way to the many conditions of man. The first verse commences:
What do I owe to this dear land of ours?
Then follows the answer:
All of my best, my time, my thought, my powers.
Then the next verse asks a question and gives the answer:
What do I owe to those who follow on?
To build more sure the freedoms we have won.
Surely that is the role of every member of the House of Commons, and particularly it is the role of the Speaker of this house, to build more sure the freedoms we have won so that those of future generations who may follow us will benefit, not only from our endeavours but from the endeavours of our forefathers. But those freedoms cannot be built up and made more sure without

House of Commons
constant watch. Vigilance must be there all the time. In referring to the freedoms Kipling uses these words:
All we have of freedom, all we use or know
This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.
Ancient right, unnoticed as the breath we draw.
We are so apt to take these rights and treat them as though they do not really concern us. We take them for granted, and it is only on the rare occasions when those rights are challenged that we begin to notice. Rights were won for us centuries ago at Runnymede and in Westminster Hall. Cast your mind back to the 13th century when we had Magna Carta; then the petition of rights followed, the great remonstrance and the bill of rights. Those were all great endeavours by our forefathers to try to preserve the freedoms for the generations which would come. For centuries statesmen have been building on those rights in order that we may reap the benefit.
They were hard-won rights, sometimes in long debate, sometimes under great persecution and sometimes on the battlefield. It may be said that we cannot turn back the clock, that we cannot bring King John back to life, that Charles I was beheaded and cannot come back again. But I suggest that those were not merely men, they represented a state of mind which I regret to say still exists in this world, the state of mind of absolute power, the state of mind of the dictator. Unless we watch very carefully occasions will arise when we will have to protest against the encroachment of this state of mind which was represented by the actions of those dictators of long ago.
General Eisenhower made a very remarkable speech in the Guildhall of London at the close of the last war. These were his words in part:
To preserve his freedom of worship, his equality before the law, his liberty to speak and act as he sees fit, subject only to the provision that he trespass not upon the similar rights of others.
He said that the men of London would fight for those rights. He went on to say that the men of his home town in the United States would also fight for those rights and for that freedom. We know that the men of Canada have fought for those selfsame rights.
But the events of the last few days have shown that His Honour the Speaker and his deputies have not permitted equality before this chair. They have denied the liberty of members to speak when members had a perfect right to express their points of view. There has not been equality before the law by this chair. The liberty of speech has

been curtailed. Long years ago advice was given to a young man in these words:
My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
Late Thursday evening and early Friday morning His Honour was enticed and His Honour gave consent. We will never know what sordid means were used to lure Mr. Speaker from his path of duty. The government honours its secrets and when it does to the extent that we have seen recently it becomes tyranny. On Friday last you suddenly reversed your decision and ruled a motion out of order. I shall not go into great detail about that unhappy event. I do not think it could be summed up better than in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) as found at page 4646 of Hansard of June 4:
One of the most serious aspects of this strange course was that when I-
The Leader of the Opposition.
-attempted, as did many other hon. members, to be heard in regard to this matter on a point of order the Speaker refused to hear a word from any member in regard to this completely strange device which had been employed or which was then under consideration. At the moment the Speaker called the vote without permitting any point of order to be raised or any discussion whatever on the proceedings which were taking place, at that moment confidence in the Speaker disappeared in the minds of many members of this house. Then, as though this were not enough in itself, as though this were not defilement of our rules sufficient for one day, the Speaker after the vote on that decision had been taken announced that he found he had made a mistake in the ruling he had made about 5.15 p.m. the day before and for that reason all subsequent proceedings should be declared a nullity. Mr. Speaker, there can be no precedent for any such course.
Your fault, Mr. Speaker, on that tragic day was one of weakness and lack of resolution. Far greater responsibility rests on those men who, by threats or promises, played upon your vanity and your ambitions. But the Prime Minister saw nothing wrong with this barefaced flouting of parliamentary rules and procedures. He could find no occasion when Your Honour had refused to hear any opposition member when, in the Prime Minister's opinion, he had a right to be heard. The Prime Minister could only recall that the rules of the house had been disregarded to the extent of what amounted to the prejudice of the government. Prejudice of the government! That seemed to be the all-important thing.
He refused to admit that the rules of parliament had been subordinated to the will of the government. The government supporters, according to the Prime Minister, had created no scene, made no manifestation. Only the opposition was to blame. All his geese were swans.

The Minister of Finance followed along the same line. As leader of the house he refused to accept any responsibility for what had taken place the week before. These were some of the words he used, and I quote from page 4683 of Hansard of June 4:
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.
Mark these words-
However, I hope that in expressing agreement in that sense I am not to be taken as having accepted any responsibility for it.
That from the leader of the house! No wonder Hansard records some members as saying, "Oh, oh", and an hon. member as saying, "Oh, you hypocrite". Others referred to his sanctimonious attitude. Then he went on to say:
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.
That was the man who only ten minutes before had done his best to provoke members on this side of the house and to agitate them by insulting them and using terms which no cabinet minister should stoop to use. Seven times, as recorded in the first two columns of his speech in Hansard, the Minister of Finance referred to this party in derogatory terms. "Tory party", he said, in a sneering tone; "Tory party", and he has the nerve to say that he had done nothing and none of his followers had done anything to excite the members of this party. Over 200 years ago the name "Tory" was given to the Conservatives in the United Kingdom. It was an insulting name drawn from a small band of Irish bandits. There were other names used for other parties in those days.
I have been here for some ten years. I realize that all parties have had a great history. The Conservative party has made a great contribution to the history of this country and to the history of democracy in other lands. The Liberal party has made a great contribution to the development of this country and the development of democracy in other lands. Those parties which have represented the socialist creed have made great contributions. But it ill behooves a minister of the crown to stand up and try to cast slurs upon other parties in this house. I may be wrong, but I cannot remember ever hearing any member on this side of the house
House of Commons
refer to the Liberal party by derogatory names, certainly not seven times in the first ten minutes of a speech.
That is only an indication, Mr. Speaker, of some of the things which have been going on. I said when I started that I felt I had been wounded. I have tried to analyse my thoughts during this unhappy period. My thoughts and feelings after the events of last week were very akin to my thoughts when I heard of the abdiction of Edward VIII. I remember so well that I was driving through western Ontario going to Windsor when the word came over the car radio. My friend who was driving had to stop the car because he felt so ill when the sad news was heard. A position which he had revered had been insulted. A man of whom he had thought much had been shown to be unworthy of the high office that he held.
Those were the feelings I have had during the past few weeks. The dignity of the office of Speaker of this house, an office which I was prepared to revere, had been shattered. Men I had regarded with some esteem I have now lost faith in. I do not know how you are going to restore the confidence as between government and opposition and as between members and the Chair in this parliament. This is an unhappy house. This will remain an unhappy house as long as this parliament is in existence. We can never live on the same terms of even casual friendship as we have lived in the past.
I think the Minister of Finance is bound at all times to smart under that brand which has been given him. I refer to the brand of hypocrite. He cannot remove that from the record. If he is human he will find it difficult to associate with those he may think have used that term to him, whether or not it was justified. I know I feel that it is almost impossible for me to associate on any level of friendship with some of those who have taken a leading part in this debate.
It is an unhappy situation. I am deeply sorry for Mr. Speaker and for his deputy, the chairman of committees. I believe that they have made mistakes. I think they have been put in this terrible situation by the actions of the government; and I hold as being mainly responsible for those actions, the Prime Minister and the leader of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to engage in quite as violent language as did the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps you do not feel as keenly.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry if I do not appear to feel as keenly as my hon. friend. I really do.

House of Commons
I shall do my best at once to apologize to him if I offended him in any manner by referring to his party as the Tory party. It may well be that with his particular knowledge of the origin of the word and his desire not to be associated with the occasion on which the words were first used, he would feel that that was not the type of name that he would like to have attributed to his party. I assure him that I was aware, as was he, of the origin of the word. I also wish to assure him that in my part of the country-as will be borne out, I am sure, by looking at Hansard the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe refers to us as Grits and we refer to them as Tories.
These old names, Mr. Speaker, have a certain affection and a certain meaning, and I thought that long ago the Conservative party had not objected to the use of the word "Tory". If they do, I immediately apologize for having perhaps lapsed into the vernacular on which I have been brought up in Ontario politics and which I am sure will long outlive both the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and myself. I think these words will be used for all time to come. But in retracting them, I do so sincerely and I shall do my best to avoid the use of the word, at least in the House of Commons, if it is the desire of his party that I should not use it.
He spoke very feelingly at one stage about some matters to which I think I ought to refer later, and I hope I shall be reminded of them.
As everyone has said, Mr. Speaker, this has been a very unusual and unprecedented motion and debate. The Prime Minister spoke at some length the day before yesterday and gave detailed reasons why Mr. Speaker was, in our opinion, entitled to and enjoyed the warmhearted support of a great many of us in this house. I doubt that I should try to add anything to what he said. But after all, in view of what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has said, I think I might possibly say a few words both with respect to the immediate problem that faced Mr. Speaker and as to some of the reasons advanced in a general sense by those who have already spoken on the other side.
May I point out that the hon. member for Nanaimo introduced a resolution with respect to privilege. May I also point out that he had raised a question of privilege on a prior occasion and that it would not be surprising that Mr. Speaker had had occasion to consider what was then before the house. May I also point out that when the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo, at the first opportunity when he inquired if there

was any point of order on this side, I raised a point of order as will be seen at page 4531 of Hansard. I raised the point of order in these words:
As I recall the situation, a short while ago Your Honour ruled that you must put the question which was submitted to you from the committee of the whole. From that ruling there was an appeal to the house and the house upheld your decision. That being the case I suggest to Your Honour that no intervening proceeding can occur, because you had in effect said that the interpretation of the rule was that you-
And I remember emphasizing those words.
-must then put the motion. If that is so, then I suggest that nothing can happen until-
At that point the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe interjected. Then Mr. Speaker rose to his feet and went on to say some words which I shall give in a moment, and I resumed my seat without having obtained from Mr. Speaker a ruling at that particular moment. But may I point out what Mr. Speaker said when he then rose to his feet. I think I can skip everything down to the final sentence at the bottom of page 4531, which begins as follows:
If hon. members care to debate this matter before I myself am heard on the subject, 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.
Let me continue further. There were some intervening interjections, and ultimately the Leader of the Opposition continued the debate. Mr. Speaker once again interjected, as will be seen on page 4532 at the top of the second column. Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar interjected; then Mr. Speaker again, and I come finally to the bottom of the second column of page 4532 where I find these words by Mr. Speaker:
This is a matter on which perhaps I might give a ruling on a future occasion, but at this moment I would ask hon. members to consider that there is a very serious matter before this house, perhaps much more serious than one foresees at this moment in the midst of other proceedings.


Mr. Knowles:: In all fairness, read the whole paragraph; start at the beginning. The Prime Minister did this the other day too. It is shameful.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not the slightest intention of doing anything shameful, or of misleading anyone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister did it the other day, too.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall go back to the first of the paragraph.
As regards the article by Mr. Eugene Forsey, in which he writes under the title "About Closure, the Speaker, and Rights of Parliament", there may be more paragraphs there which are incriminatory, but certainly not the whole of the article.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That makes it tremendously different.


Walter Edward Harris: X continue:
This is a matter on which perhaps I might give a ruling on a future occasion, but at this moment I would ask hon. members to consider that there is a very serious matter before this house, perhaps much more serious than one foresees at this moment in the midst of other proceedings. I repeat the suggestion I made earlier, that this matter for the moment be adjourned.
The Leader of the Opposition, however, did not adjourn the debate but continued. It will surely be obvious from this, but perhaps my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre would not even agree to this, that Mr. Speaker had something in his mind about this; that this was not the last word to be said on the subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said only that he might have to rule on how much of the article was incriminatory.


Walter Edward Harris: That may well be or it might not be. However, my hon. friends opposite are in a position to place upon these words any interpretation they desire. I point out to him, as I do to every hon. member who has spoken in this debate, that we on this side have opinions-those opinions are not well founded in the view of hon. members opposite; I recognize that-but I hope the time has not come when we are expected to accept their opinions without question.
The following day Mr. Speaker said in effect that, upon consideration, he had concluded these matters were not matters of privilege and therefore ruled the motion made by the hon. member for Nanaimo out of order. He asked if hon. members wished to appeal, and that is on page 4537 of Hansard for June 1, 1956. As almost every member who has spoken has said, the Leader of the Opposition at that point attempted to argue the merits of the decision. Mr. Speaker did not permit that but did ask him if he wished to appeal the ruling. He did, in fact, say on page 4537:
I appeal your ruling but I also suggest that you should accept this motion.
That motion, I take it, was the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo. At this point the Speaker had made a ruling and the Leader of the Opposition wished to discuss the ruling. The Speaker had not chosen to accept discussion of it but had given the opportunity, which he was bound to do, to allow an appeal from his decision. This appeal was dealt with.
While I am on the subject of appeals, Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that I interjected only a few words into the address of the hon. member for Prince Albert because I know he would not want to have the record
House of Commons
read as if he were referring to this parliament when in fact he was referring to the United Kingdom parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my hon. friend. I appreciate the interruption and I know that was the purpose.


Walter Edward Harris: It might perhaps be useful if every member who speaks after me in this debate, though I do not wish to suggest any course of action to anybody, would bear in mind the distinction between this parliament and the United Kingdom parliament. There is a real distinction. It may be that we have a better system or it may be that they have a better system. I do not think we need to debate that at this time. But let me point out that in the United Kingdom, and this is well known by all hon. members, there are no appeals from the Speaker's rulings; nor, if I remember correctly, are there any appeals from the chairman's rulings in committee.
It may be that the very fact we in this country do allow appeals, in fact we provide for them by the rules, is something which ought to be considered in this parliament. It may be that the fact there are appeals permitted by the rules inclines toward creating appeals for reasons which would not have too much weight in the long run if the appeals were not allowed.
Every member of this house has said, and we all recognize it, that when Your Honour entered into your present duties you were looked upon with the highest regard. As has been said, I think by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, if in Canada we should reach a time when the Speaker might be continued in office for longer than the period of one parliament, it might be possibly while Your Honour was in that chair because of the high regard in which Your Honour was held.
I think that was a recognition not only of the personal regard in which you were held as a result of being acquainted with Your Honour since 1945 and in some cases earlier than that, but it was a state of mind brought about by the work you had done as a delegate to the United Nations on behalf of the people of Canada and because you had served as deputy speaker throughout the period 1949 to 1953 and had given universal satisfaction. All this builds up to the fact that when you entered into your duties you were held in the highest regard.
I speak subject to correction, but I do not recall any appeal from your rulings during at least the first two sessions of this parliament.


Mr. Fleming:: One.

House of Commons


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Eglinton tells me that there was one appeal prior to this session. I had forgotten it but I accept the correction. The Leader of the Opposition the other day in his quite good, historically correct and even in places moving remarks about the institution of the Speaker, did say something that I had either overlooked or had forgotten. As I recall it, he said that there had been newspaper criticism of Your Honour prior to the time we engaged in this debate. As I say, I do not recall it and he did not elaborate; however, I accept it as a fact. I would not know what newspaper criticism there had been of Your Honour prior to this debate, but if it had begun at that time it must have been as a result of appeals from your rulings in this house or of criticism of Your Honour in this house, because I doubt very much whether any newspaper editorial would undertake to criticize Your Honour if you were not being criticized in the house or by members of it. Therefore, looking back on it I have come to the conclusion, sir, that some time since this session began there have been criticisms of you or of your rulings by the opposition, because I am quite satisfied there was none on this side, and that brought about the newspaper comment.
May I point out again the very substantial difference between our parliament and that of the United Kingdom. I have heard you, sir, ask for and listen to points of order at very considerable length. I am not criticizing your conduct when I say that. I have known you, sir, to be half-way through putting a motion and then, out of courtesy, permit an interjection or allow a point of order or another comment to be made at that time by members of the opposition. I would hope that hon. members opposite, if they follow in this debate as I am sure they will, would tell me whether they would expect any such conduct from the Speaker in the United Kingdom parliament?


Mr. Fulton:: No. There the government would defend the point of order instead of leaving it to their Speaker.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall come to that in a moment. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that some time prior to this debate there seemed to be growing up in this house a dissatisfaction with your rulings or with your conduct, I take it to be with your rulings. 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 cases.

It may well be that hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party will always support their leader if he appeals a ruling Your Honour has made. I think it is only to be expected that under these circumstances members of the Liberal party would support your ruling. It may be that members of the other parties present, not feeling particularly engaged in the matter, perhaps at times may support your ruling and at other times may not; but, as a matter of fact and without looking at the record in detail, I doubt very much whether that had occurred until recently.
I am of the opinion that the appeals which have been taken since the beginning of this session have been supported by the opposition groups, and we have upheld your rulings. Again subject to correction-I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will follow and tell me if I am wrong-I do not recall an occasion during this session when his party has not voted against the Speaker's ruling, and that before this particular debate began. I may be wrong, and if I am wrong I apologize. But, sir, so long as these appeals are allowed we shall have the appearance of a political dispute in this house about the Speaker's ruling.
If, as was the case in parliament previously, this was common practice, nobody paid a great deal of attention to it. I well recall- the hon. member for Prince Albert will recall as well-that on a great many successive Wednesdays when in those days we used to vote on motions for papers, it was almost an invariable rule that we would have divisions on motions for papers and the like. Then at a later time we would have appeals on the rulings of the Speaker as well. In those days we often used to have appeals on a decision as to whether or not a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance was in order. Eventually that passed away.
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.
This afternoon the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway suggested that we might consider-in fact he said we should consider -changing the rules of the house. I am free to

confess, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion certainly appeals to me because, as the hon. member for Prince Albert has said, in the United Kingdom they have a different method of invoking closure from what we have. He was quite right the other night when he interjected in the course of my remarks that Mr. Speaker has a discretion in the matter in the United Kingdom.
I am sorry I did not catch what he said at the time, although I read it in Hansard afterwards. Had I caught it, I would have elaborated the point. In the United Kingdom, as I said the other night, they can have quick closure; they can have closure in a matter of hours. It is true that the putting of the motion for closure depends on the discretion of the Speaker, for the reasons which have been read to us this afternoon by the hon. member for Prince Albert. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, closure does in fact occur. It must have been evident in the course of the last three weeks that our closure rule has not been effective in any sense whatever as compared with what it had been prior to this or with respect to that which obtains in the United Kingdom parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by saying, it has not been effective?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I will touch on that in a moment. My answer so far has been to a great deal that has been said because every speaker who has engaged in this debate, except perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, has been arguing about closure as if closure had [DOT] anything to do with the motion before the house, except in so far as their feelings may have been engaged because closure was going on at the time, or the government was attempting to impose closure at the time this particular motion arose. But do not let us decide on the question of the Speaker because as opposition members we happen to disagree with closure invoked by the government and for which they are prepared to accept full responsibility.
The government knows perfectly well that closure is an unusual and rarely accepted method of passing legislation in this house. This afternoon the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway may have had a valid point when he criticized us for paying any attention to threats of filibuster made by members of the two parties opposite. I hope we will not argue that again. I only say this. The government invoked the closure rule after full consideration; and because we did that I hope no hon. member opposite will feel there is any reason for voting in favour of this particular motion with respect to the Speaker.
Now, there may be other reasons and I shall come to them in a moment. The hon.
House of Commons
member for Esquimalt-Saanich spoke of those who had fought and died for this country and the freedom we enjoy. I paid particular attention, having regard to his distinguished service on behalf of this country in two world wars. I was a little disappointed, just a little, that he did not make it clear that there are a good many people on the government side who have fought for this country from time to time. I am sure it was just an accident in drafting the notes he had because he realizes as I do that we are-


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was no reference to either side.


George Randolph Pearkes: Just to keep the record
straight, I made no reference to any hon. member of parliament having served in the war. My remarks were general. I was not thinking of members of this house.


Mr. Rowe:: I think the hon. member simply said that many had fought.


Walter Edward Harris: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement that he was speaking generally.
I was inclined to accept the criticism he was directing to me at that particular moment in the light of what he had said otherwise, and implying that perhaps those of us who had fought for this country were forgetting the freedom we fought for.
I accept the correction, sir, and say this. One of the things that must be decided in this debate, if it can be decided, is how this parliament can function if your decisions are to be subject to appeal. Now, if we have a situation arise in which every decision of the Speaker is to be subject to appeal quite obviously we shall not be able to legislate for those things with or without opposition which we consider should be done.
On the other hand in this country we have followed the practice, and I think it is a very excellent practice, sir, of having Speakers drawn from the two-I was going to say minority groups-which are the largest minority groups in this country; and I would not like to think we would enter upon a practice which over a number of years would not give an opportunity for service in the chair to persons like yourself who represent one of those great races. Nor would I like to think that we would enter upon a practice that would mean some other person, representing another part of this country, might not also have the honour of sitting in the chair.
We have imposed this disability, if you will, upon ourselves-and I do not call it a disability; I think it is the contrary-but one cannot compare the Speakership in Canada with that of the United Kingdom

House of Commons
unless we first make the Speaker's appointment permanent and second make his authority absolute in the sense that you do not permit appeals from his decisions.
Therefore, while I agree entirely with all the lofty sentiments my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert has expressed both in his own words and in the quotations he has read, I say that we can use those words in this country and we can mean them too, but our actions may not possibly live up to the words if we deny to the Speaker that authority and position which he enjoys in Westminster.


John George Diefenbaker: Just one word. Does the minister not agree, however, having regard to the fact that our system and the division of our population denies a permanent Speaker on the basis of one race or the other, that the one point I made was that the Speaker should be in no way subject to suggestion on the part of the government?


Walter Edward Harris: I entirely agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Speakership in this country, because of the situation which is created by a new Speaker every four or five years or whatever term parliament may run to, being in the difficult position of having to pick up the traditions and having to pick up his knowledge of the office and the manner in which to conduct it-


Edmund Davie Fulton: His difficulty arises toward the end of his term, not toward the beginning.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Kamloops I think will agree with me that if this difficulty arose prior to this particular debate it will be necessary for hon. members of his party to explain why at this particular moment we have this particular motion. Now, I accept his leader's statement to the effect that it did arise prior to this, and I submit to him-


George Alexander Drew: What is that? What did you say?


Mr. Winters:: What did who say?


Walter Edward Harris: I said what I had said a few minutes ago, that in his introductory remarks my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had said that criticism had arisen with respect to Mr. Speaker in the press of Canada before this debate arose.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; that is so.


Walter Edward Harris: And I went on to say-I do not know whether there was or not-I would expect that criticism could only have arisen if there was criticism here in the house.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows;
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills;
An act for the relief of Lorinc Orvos Nagy.
An act for the relief of Regis Edouard Gosselin.
An act for the relief of William Boychuck.
An act for the relief of Edna Betty Berendt Payment.
An act for the relief of Leona Jennie Xmpey Mella.
An act for the relief of Joseph Elie Felix Leduc, otherwise known as Jean Leduc.
An act for the relief of Florence Mintz Etinson.
An act for the relief of Jeanne Yvonne Gaouyat Leroy.
An act for the relief of Adrienne Rozenbaum Melzak.
An act for the relief of Joan Louise Squires Connolly.
An act for the relief of Carol May Burch Squires.
An act for the relief of Irene Raab Agoston.
An act for the relief of Joan Marshall Bougie.
An act for the relief of Heather Thornton Williamson.
An act for the relief of Helen Louise Hancox Fray.
An act for the relief of John Wallace Herbert.
An act for the relief of Angeline Sperdakos Trakas.
An act for the relief of Sheelagh Duffin Bennett.
An act for the relief of Ruth Alister Creighton Jones.
An act for the relief of Doris Lillian Doughty Dick.
An act for the relief of Joan Etta Young Campbell.
An act for the relief of Doris Evelyn Hirsch Stephen.
An act for the relief of Luvina Mallet Lambert.
An act for the relief of Lois Margaret Clouston Willar.
An act for the relief of Mona Margaret McCastlin Adams.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Joanne Campbell Mockeridge.
An act for the relief of Edna Gertrude Neil Fry.
An act for the relief of Madeleine Tremblay St. Jean.
An act for the relief of Stephen Harvan.
An act for the relief of Charles Lanny Catto.
An act for the relief of Simonne Trottier Breard.
An act for the relief of Mary Murray Snook.
An act for the relief of Ruth Katie Brigden Battersby.
An act for the relief of Marie Dicerni Arcieri.
An act for the relief of Laurence Turgeon, otherwise known as Laurent Turgeon.
An act for the relief of Barbara Allen Deslauriers.
An act for the relief of Henri Xavier Eugene Bernard.
An act for the relief of Jeanette Cowan Weinstein.

An act for the relief of Hina LeBreton Fleurent. An act for the relief of Hazel Annie Palmer Martel.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Matilda Clayton Sawyer.
An act for	the	relief	of	Leonora	CancelliDesgroseilliers. An act for	the	relief	of	Eugenia	Towstuk
Podilchuk.
An act for the relief of Rose Rother Lewartt.
An act for the relief of Marie Germaine Muguette Andree Brunet Sievert.
An act for the relief of Joan Noble Rusk.
An act for the relief of Joseph Edouard Walter Gerard LeBlanc.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeannine Eda Coderre Azaria.
An act for the relief of Mary Margaret Florence Bradley Green.
An act for the relief of Mary Wylie Johnston Haan.
An act for the relief of Christina Walsh Mc-Brearty.
An act for the relief of Marie Anne Roy Suess.
An act for the relief of Ray Israel Lieder.
An act for the relief of Lillias Cushnie Dowden Grande.
An act for the relief of Angelina Heylen Thirion.
An act for the relief of William James Munden.
An act for the relief of Robert Raymond.
An	act	for	the	relief	of Jacqueline Gagne
Brothers.
An act for the relief of Nathan Fishbine.
An act for the relief of Dorothea Atkinson Bosse.
An act for the relief of George Evangelinelis.
An	act	for	the	relief	of Tatiana Holowko
Kucznski.
An act for the relief of May McMullin Bjornson.
An act for the relief of Adrienne Cote Souliere.
An act for the relief of Imogene Eva Patricia Hayes Knox.
An act for the relief of Maria Domany Cap.
An act for the relief of Elfrieda Eggert Nowinski.
An act for the relief of Mary Valerie Dorothy Johnston Bromwich.
An act for the relief of Islay Isobel Campbell Jones.
An act for the relief of Audrey Joan Atkinson Hanson Hanson.
An act for the relief of Marie Eglantine Victoria Laurenza Gagne Holowaty.
An act for the relief of Barbara Helen Major Kaye.
An act for the relief of Hazel Me Janet Thompson Stewart.
An act for the relief of Patricia Marion Cook Townsend.
An act for the relief of Helen Joan Franks Manley Sellen.
An act for the relief of Lily Kite Herscovitch.
An act for the relief of Mary Bagdonas Roselle.
An act for the relief of Arthur Telford Bates.
An act for the relief of Marjorie Pennell Robinson.
An act for the relief of Joseph Henri Andre Lessard.
An act for the relief of Sheila Joan Mencher Morantz.
An act for the relief of Frances Marie Ware Ami.
An act for the relief of Shirley Field Schleider.
An act for the relief of Jeannine Cecile Marie Tessier Davies.
An act for the relief of Madeline Mclsaac Metayer.
An act for the relief of Gloria Ann Hazelton Stewart.
An act for the relief of Clifford Acland Barber.
67509-305£
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Hilda Louise Prewer Shaver.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Earle Bell.
An act for the relief of Leba Lee Black Lichtenstein.
An act for the relief of Helen Walker Seive-wright Edwards.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Hayes Renaud.
An act for the relief of Isabell Jones Page.
An act for the relief of Joyce Burgess Lewis Cloutier.
An act for the relief of Marie Yvonne Blais Leger.
An act for the relief of Jeanne Fleury Touchette.
An act for the relief of Doris Cammy Lapkoff.
An act for the relief of Thea Anna May Laskowski.
An act for the relief of Thelma Barton Taylor McPhee.
An act for the relief of Olga Pritula Memi.
An act for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Margaret Ritchie Campbell.
An act for the relief of Edith May Robertson Thompson.
An act for the relief of Hans Christian Anderson
An act for the relief of Raffaele Polissena.
An act for the relief of Hilda Evelyn Charlton Carlson.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Pilkington Wilson.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Nesbitt Ward Pratt.
An act for the relief of Nichita Tomescu.
An act for the relief of Lilly Katoffsky Schwartz.
An act for the relief of Rita Beryl Gwendolyn Scott Darlington.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Christie Bradley Cunniam.
An act for the relief of Samuel Marks Stirling.
An act for the relief of Violet Ethel Stanway Sharpe.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth June Robertson Fraser.
An act for the relief of Shirley Ann Joss Le Boeuf.
An act for the relief of Marguerite Catherine Evans Macfarlane.
An act for the relief of Agniete Stravinskaite Paskevicius.
An act for the relief of Joseph Marc Bernard Levesque.
An act for the relief of Kenneth Wilfred Morgan
An act for the relief of Mary Helen Norali Whelehan Gondos.
An act for the relief of Roger Paul Rene Hilaire Varnier.
An act for the relief of Sarah Abramovsky Gordon.
An act for the relief of Ruth Shirley Churchill O'Neill.
An act for the relief of Edgar Ferland Theoret.
An act for the relief of Therese Laure Turgeon Garson.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeannine Lucette Poirier Legault.
An act for the relief of Marie Rose Theresa Allain Gauvin.
An act for the relief of Marie Therese Murielle Audelin Blemur.
An act for the relief of Frantisek Horsky, otherwise known as Francis Horsky.
An act for the relief of Anne Campbell Hogwood.
An act for the relief of Maud Virginia af Ugglas Marchant.
An act for the relief of Annie Eva Lewin Sutcliffe.
An act for the relief of Vanda Vainoraite Lebedziunas.
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons
An act for the relief of Ivy Hutchcraft Fawcett.
An act for the relief of Charles Edouard Racicot.
An act for the relief of Jeanine Yvonne Pinatel Wells.
An act for the relief of Georgina Mary Elizabeth Forcade Sheehan.
An act for the relief of Bridget Ann Hamilton Limoges.
An act for the relief of Mildred Jane Clendenning Dephoure.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Marie Hartwig Bensinger.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Mary Lucretia Glassco Bishop.
An act for the relief of Marie Therese Justine Georgette Spenard Mignault.
An act for the relief of Vera Florence Gilson Shehyn.
An act respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company.
An act to incorporate the Western Gospel Mission.
An act to incorporate the Canadian Council of Churches.
An act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries.
An act to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
An act respecting the pension fund society of the Dominion Bank.
An act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
An act to implement an agreement between Canada and the kingdom of Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
An act to amend the Department of Transport Act.
An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act to incorporate the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada.
An act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An act respecting Trans-Prairie Pipelines of Canada, Ltd.
An act respecting Ogdensburg bridge authority.
An act respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois-Rivieres.
An act to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Nine minutes.


Mr. Mclvor:: Where is the opposition?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich were here I would point out-and though he is not here I do it anyway-that the Ottawa Journal uses the phrase "western Tory in final criticism".


Mr. Nowlan:: Are there any connotations to
that?


Walter Edward Harris: No, none whatever.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is here now. Say it to him.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. Just before my hon. friend came in I was referring to an Ottawa Journal headline which reads "Western Tory in final criticism". However, I accept my hon. friend's objection to that word on a permanent basis.
Mr. Speaker, when I broke off at a quarter to six I think I had come to the point where I said it would appear that any decision we have made in the past with respect to a decision by Mr. Speaker has been made largely on party lines, and that probably any decision we may make in the future will be made largely on party lines. I repeated that I thought this situation was the result of the system we had in this country, and I did not criticize that system. I did submit to hon. members that they should consider whether or not we would ever avoid the possibility of that situation so long as we allowed an appeal to the house from a decision of Mr. Speaker.
In the course of this debate it has been implied-I do not think it has been suggested directly-that it is unfortunate that Mr. Speaker's conduct should be brought into question and that the matter could only be decided in this manner, namely by a resolution with respect to his conduct. Let me point out that this form of resolution could be used-I am not suggesting it is being so used at the moment-to advance the party disputes which occur in this house.
By one of the hon. members who spoke earlier in the debate I think it was suggested that the only way to resolve this problem was to dissolve the house so that we would have a new parliament and presumably a new Speaker. But let me point out that if an opposition felt that was the way to conduct the business of the house, and if they felt that a government would be obliged to dissolve parliament because they attacked the Speaker, then I suggest to you that these attacks might possibly be more frequent than they have been.

It is true that the government at least proposes to parliament the choice of a Speaker. That is the duty of the government. In this particular case I recall that the Leader of the Opposition joined in the recommendation to parliament. It would always be the duty of a government to recommend another Speaker on another occasion, whatever the government may be.
1 know that hon. members opposite feel extremely strongly on this particular point. I know that every one of them is aware of the great responsibility that all of us bear in the consideration of the discharge of the duties of Mr. Speaker. I am ready to agree that they must have given long, careful and serious thought to the proposal before us. Even if it were moved, as I think it was, at a time when feelings were stronger than they have been at any other time while I have been in the house, the fact of the matter is that the resolution was allowed to remain on the order paper and to be moved some 48 hours or so after that.
I give my hon. friends opposite full credit for taking a serious and solemn view of the problem before they engaged upon the debate of this resolution. But for the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that it would lead to only one conclusion; and I wonder whether, under our system, any other conclusion could be reached and whether or not it is desirable that we should come to that conclusion.
May I just add one word more. Both the leader of the C.C.F. party and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, in their remarks, have spoken of the friendships they have enjoyed in the house, which they do not feel could continue under present conditions. I sincerely regret that expression of opinion. I have always had a high regard for both hon. members and for every other member of the opposition. I would hope we would recognize that if this motion is disposed of by a vote, it would be, generally speaking, on party lines; that is the only way, according to our rules, in which it could be disposed of.
For that reason I would hope that after this is over, all of us could take a view which would not be the view expressed by the two hon. gentlemen but rather that now we have discussed it and hon. members have expressed themselves-and I must say with dignity on every occasion-all of us could vote and accept the result; that we could take up where we left off without these friendships having been more than temporarily involved; and that we could once again work together in the sense that a government and an opposition work together in the larger sense of being part of a parliament which is here for
House of Commons
the purpose of disposing of the business of the people of Canada, with opposition, as my hon. friend has said, and with proposal and support on this side but on the basis-which is the true basis-that all of us are sent here to discharge our duties seriously and honestly, and that all of us are trying our very best to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with mixed feelings. So far as His Honour the Speaker is concerned I approach what I have to say with a heavy heart. So far as the government's part in this whole affair is concerned, it is difficult for me to express my feelings.
With regard to Mr. Speaker-though some may wonder at this in view of what has happened in the last few days and in view of what I may say before I take my seat-I am going to say that there is no friendship with any other person in this House of Commons that I value and enjoy more than 1 do my personal friendship with Mr. Speaker. So far as I am concerned that friendship arises because of my respect for his qualities as outlined this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I suppose it is also true to say that it arises because of a common interest in parliamentary procedure. Not only have I personal respect for my friend Rene Beaudoin, but I have the highest of regard for the industry with which he has applied himself to his task as Speaker and for the tremendous knowledge he has gained of parliamentary procedure across the centuries. Despite what has happened in the last few days and despite what duty compels me to do in this debate, I hope that friendship between us will continue.
When I think of Mr. Speaker and what he has done for parliament in these last three years-up until a few days ago-I am conscious of the job he has done here on the floor of parliament. I say this to the Minister of Finance, despite the specious attempt he made to picture the opposition as having been critical of Mr. Speaker for a long time. I say that Mr. Speaker's job in this parliament has been appreciated by all of us in the opposition just as much as by those who sit to his right.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say anything about a long time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance went to great pains to indicate that the criticism of Mr. Speaker by the opposition did not start with this pipe-line debate. He went to great pains to indicate that there had been criticism of his rulings prior to this pipe-line debate, and that that was the basis of the

House of Commons
newspaper attacks on Mr. Speaker which occurred prior to the time the pipe-line debate began.


Walter Edward Harris: I referred to the fact the Leader of the Opposition had said that. I said that I myself did not know about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to let the
record speak for itself. I paid very close attention to what the Minister of Finance said.


Mr. Lesage:: That is what he said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I paid very close attention to what the minister said this afternoon. I want to tell him that, subject to my not having been able to find everything on the point between the time I had supper and eight o'clock, so far as I can ascertain there were only two appeals against rulings by Mr. Speaker prior to the pipe-line debate.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for confirming that fact. First may I say that there were no appeals in the session of 1954. In the session of 1955, there was only one appeal. It occurred on July 5 of that year and is recorded on pages 5683, 5684 and 5685 of Hansard. The appeal was made by the Progressive Conservatives. When the vote was called naturally the Progressive Conservatives voted against Mr. Speaker's ruling but we of the C.C.F., along with the members of the Social Credit party and the members of the government, voted to sustain Mr. Speaker's ruling. Let the record speak for itself, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the pipe-line debate there were only two appeals of Speaker's rulings in this parliament. In one case we voted against the ruling and on one occasion we voted to sustain the ruling.
The other of the two to which I have referred occurred on March 23 of this year, and is recorded on page 2457 of Hansard. The occasion was a motion for the production of papers moved by my colleague the hon. member for Yorkton to which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied a treatment that was dug out of antiquity. We did not like it. We protested against it and we argued about it. At this moment I cannot recall whether we were thinking of appealing the ruling, but in the course of the argument Mr. Speaker was offended by something the hon. member for Prince Albert said and the result was that Mr. Speaker virtually challenged the hon. member for Prince Albert to appeal the ruling. The hon. member for Prince Albert did so, and that was the occasion when we voted against Mr. Speaker's ruling.

In addition to the fact that for two and a half sessions there were only two appeals, there have been quite a number of occasions when Mr. Speaker has ruled against motions or amendments moved from this side of the house. I confess that the number of rulings against motions or amendments made by members of the C.C.F. group seems to be fewer than is the case for members to my right or left, but there have been some cases affecting all three parties on this side of the house. In none of those other cases except the two to which I have referred were appeals launched. I call my colleagues around me as witnesses to this statement. There have been several occasions when one colleague or another has been dissatisfied with the ruling Mr. Speaker has made and has suggested to me that I should appeal it. I have turned around and said, "No; Mr. Speaker is being fair." There have been occasions when Mr. Speaker has ruled against the government. He ruled against the Minister of Finance in respect of the Post Office Act. So I have said to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker is being fair and if we like his rulings when he rules against the government we cannot stand up and appeal his rulings when he rules against us.


Walter Edward Harris: I think it was the Deputy Speaker who ruled against me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as we are concerned, it does not matter. The occupants of the chair are one; and whichever occupant has made a ruling we have been happy, until the start of the pipe-line debate, over the kind of impartial treatment given to this House of Commons by the occupants of the chair during this twenty-second parliament.
I confess that in the parliament from 1945 to 1949 we got into the habit of making appeals. There was no other way we could get a vote. Those who were here remember the experience. Perhaps it was because we made so many appeals from 1945 to 1949 that the habit carried over into the next parliament for a time, but we soon discovered that in Mr. Speaker Macdonald we had a presiding officer in whom we could place our confidence. In fact, I remember that once in the very early months of his Speakership he ruled against the Prime Minister, and the habit of making appeals began to disappear. The habit had virtually died out with Mr. Speaker Macdonald, and when Mr. Speaker Beaudoin came into the chair he inherited a happy relationship between the house and the Chair and he was able to develop that relationship into one of the best relationships that could ever have obtained between the Speaker and the House of Commons.

I know that I enjoyed it. I know that the friendships built up during that period are such that, so far as I am concerned, they will outlast even the experience through which we are going now. I repeat that the conduct of the Speaker up until a short while ago was something that deserves from all of us the highest commendation.
I am conscious, Mr. Speaker, not only of the tremendous job you have done here in the house. I am conscious not only of your impartiality across the years to us here in this chamber, but I also have very vivid memories of a committee over which Mr. Speaker presided for two full sessions. I refer to the committee which was set up for the purpose of revising the rules of the house, which brought in a report that was adopted last July, a report which in due course became our standing orders as they are now constituted. I say to the Minister of Finance, and he knows this, that if it had not been for the approach of Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for his impartiality; if it had not been for his determination that the rules of this parliament were to be the rules of parliament and not the rules of the majority, there would not have been a unanimous report last summer.
My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is confirming that statement. The Minister of Finance knows that after two years of battling things out in that committee, that was subsequent to earlier committees in the days of Mr. Speaker Macdonald, and Mr .Speaker Fauteux, finally the point was reached in that committee where we were at loggerheads. We could not agree. The Minister of Finance had his rule changes that he felt the committee should adopt. We had gone through them; we had argued them; we had voted and we had had amendments. We had spent all kinds of hours without reaching a report that could be unanimous at all.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Acadia, the Minister of Finance and others who were members of that committee will recall that things were getting difficult.	It looked as though the
battle was lost. It looked as though the Minister of Finance was going to get his way simply by moving that the changes the government wanted be put through, that the report be made back to the house and put through by a majority vote of the House of Commons.
What did Mr. Speaker do? The minister knows what he did. He said he would not present to the House of Commons in his name as chairman a report that was the report of
House of Commons
the majority only. There had to be compromise; there had to be a report that would represent as nearly as possible unanimity of opinion on the part of that committee, and I remember the night across the way in room 16 when Mr. Speaker almost literally took four heads and banged them together, the head of the Minister of Finance, the head of the hon. member for Kamloops, the head of the hon. member for Acadia and my head. He said, "It is time for you four fellows to get out and get together in a subcommittee and come back with a report".
The proposal of Mr. Speaker became a motion and a decision of the committee was reached late that night, at eleven o'clock or perhaps twelve o'clock, in room 16 across the way. As instructed we were up in the office of the Minister of Finance on the fourth floor at nine o'clock the next morning. We started in, and my colleagues will confirm if, and found it was tough going, particularly under those circumstances, to try to give and take, but we did it.
I was looking today at Hansard of July 1, 1955, when the report of that committee was moved in this house by the Minister of Finance and seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops. But for the fact that the hon. member for Kamloops was seen first, either one of the other two of us would have had the honour to second it. Why? Because we had reached unanimity, because we had a presiding officer in this house who sensed what parliament should be like, who insisted that the rules of parliament were the rules of parliament, not the rules of the government; and this book we have, or this book we had until a week ago, the standing orders of the House of Commons, representing the unanimous report of the committee that worked for years, is our possession in the House of Commons because of the impartiality, because of the fairness, because of the appreciation of parliamentary tradition in the heart and mind of Mr. Speaker Louis Rene Beaudoin.
I shall never forget that experience. No matter what comes out of this situation in which we are, my friendship for him, my regard for him will continue. But, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime something has happened. First may I say, indicating our continuing regard for Mr. Speaker, indicating also the attitude of this house toward Mr. Speaker's rulings, that as late as May 3 of this year when the fever of the pipe line was beginning to rise though the legislation had not yet reached us, there was a motion under standing order 26 moved by the Leader of the Opposition that had to do with a pretty contentious issue,

House of Commons
the McMahon correspondence, and some question as to whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce had been completely fair with the house.
Mr. Speaker ruled the motion of the Leader of the Opposition out of order. The Leader of the Opposition appealed the ruling. It was one of those cases where no appeal is allowed. Mr. Speaker, in his desire to be fair, was leaning over backward. If you read Hansard of that day, May 3, 1956,-most members do not have to read it; it is still fresh enough in our memories-you will see that the point was reached where it looked as though Mr. Speaker was going to allow an appeal. Who was it that came to his support; who was it that rallied Mr. Speaker to stand firm; who was it that reminded him of his previous decisions? It was my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Supported by the statement my leader gave on that occasion, Mr. Speaker rallied and refused the appeal that the Leader of the Opposition sought to make. There the matter rested. That is the kind of regard this house had for Mr. Speaker until recent days.
I come down to May 7 of this year, the day before that dramatic day when the Liberals held a caucus in the morning and the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his statement in the afternoon and filed notice before six o'clock of the resolution preceding Bill No. 298. My leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, presented a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26 to discuss the matter of an across-Canada pipe line, with the suggestion of public ownership in the motion. This was something pretty basic and pretty fundamental so far as we were concerned.
It was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. In his comments he said something which we thought indicated that he was prepared to have an appeal. My leader asked whether that was what he meant. Mr. Speaker said, "No, there is no appeal". My leader accepted it. It ended there. This was on the day before the Minister of Trade and Commerce stood in this house and told parliament what it was he was going to demand, no matter what it might do to parliament, as we have learned to our sorrow. That is the kind of Speaker we had until recent days; that is the kind of relationship we had between the Chair and the members of this house. Then came the determination of that minister who operates on the slogan, "What Lola wants, Lola gets", and there followed the days which are now part of bitter memory.
I am not going through the things that happened during the first few days of that debate when we began to feel that something had happened, something had snapped. But

that was our experience. Where was our Speaker, where was the man in whom we had learned to place such confidence? Point after point that we would raise was turned down. We fell back on our only recourse, that of making appeals. The more we felt we were being denied our rights, particularly under the threat of closure, the more it seemed as though there was nothing else for us to do but to keep on raising points of procedure, trying to establish and to protect our rights.
Finally came the day that caused all the trouble. I shall not discuss anything that happened previous to May 31 and June 1, because up to that point I think we might have survived; although, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out, he warned the house and the government a few days before that we were drifting toward a crisis.
Well, other members have recited what happened on the night of May 31 when Mr. Speaker, after having heard the point of order of my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, heard the point of privilege made by my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo, and suggested to him that he should not proceed with the point of privilege unless he was prepared to put it in the form of a motion. He did so; he followed the instructions of Mr. Speaker as to how to draft the motion. He sent the documents in question to the Clerk, as suggested by Mr. Speaker. Everything was being done just as Mr. Speaker was suggesting that it be done. The next morning, June 1, something seemed to have happened. The Winnipeg Free Press in an editorial on Monday, June 4, 1956, said this:
The circumstances may, for once, be fairly put in an analogy with a football game. Late in the third quarter, the referee makes a decision that leads on to a vital score for the visiting side. The officials of the home team are obviously much upset. The fourth quarter begins with the referee announcing that he has changed his mind, that he made a wrong decision in the third quarter, and therefore play shall now proceed from where it was before he made that decision.
How apt is that description.


Mr. Hodgson:: I'll say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That morning, June 1, our trusted and revered Mr. Speaker, the one in whom we had such confidence, began to break standing orders and citations right and left. I ask you first of all to note citation 216 in Beauchesne's third edition:
On resuming an adjourned debate, the member who moved its adjournment is by courtesy entitled to speak first if he rises in his place when the order is called.

I ask you to couple that with standing order 7, which the Prime Minister quoted to us the other day in another debate, which reads:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the house, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
It is clearly established that on the morning of June 1 the Leader of the Opposition had the floor; he was in the middle of his speech. Interrupting him at that point was a violation of standing order 7 and a discourtesy to the Leader of the Opposition under citation 216 of Beauchesne's third edition. "But oh", says someone, "it is proper for the Speaker at that point if he feels he must do so to raise a point of order". No. In doing that Mr. Speaker violated the provisions of standing order 50, which reads:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order or authority applicable to the case.
If the motion of my friend the hon. member for Nanaimo was out of order, the time for Mr. Speaker to tell the house was before he put the question. But no; the night before he put the question as in order. Rising on a point of order discourteously in the midst of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I say was out of order. Then Mr. Speaker refused to hear anyone on his point of order. His contention was that this motion which was in order the night before was out of order the next morning.
I shall not go into the argument as to whether any of the rest of us might also have had the right to speak to the point of order; if that were at stake I would argue that too, but I am not going to confuse it by going that far. But I do say this, that in addition to the standing orders and citations I have already given which our revered and trusted Mr. Speaker broke, he on that occasion broke standing order 34, which reads as follows:
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.
The Leader of the Opposition sat down and Mr. Speaker stated his point of order but he denied the Leader of the Opposition the right to explain after he had sat down. What a way to start a day, a day we shall never forget.
Now, of course, we have had the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance indulge 67509-306
House of Commons
in what I can only call distortion, because they have tried to contend that Mr. Speaker forecast the night before the ruling against the motion which he made the morning of June 1. I apologize to the house for the anger with which I interrupted the Minister of Finance this afternoon, but I confess that is how I felt. Perhaps I should not have made the apology.
The Minister of Finance this afternoon endeavoured to create the impression that the ruling Mr. Speaker gave on the morning of June 1 was not something new but something forecast by what was said the night before. The minister tried to create that impression in two ways. On the one hand he drew attention to his own intervention in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, recorded at page 4531 of Hansard, when he suggested that no motion of any kind should have been entertained by the Speaker at that time.
Mr. Speaker did not rule the motion out of order the next morning on that ground; not at all. I say it is unfair, it is misleading the house and it is a case of distortion for the Minister of Finance to try to say that his intervention here in the house the night before was the basis upon which Mr. Speaker made his ruling the next morning. Then in an attempt to create the impression that some doubt had been cast the night before on the validity of my hon. friend's motion, the Minister of Finance read this, quoting from Mr. Speaker's words as recorded at page 4532 of Hansard:
This is a matter on which perhaps I might give a ruling on a future occasion-
It was at that point I burst in saying that it was shameful for the Minister of Finance to mislead the house in that way, trying to suggest that Mr. Speaker the night before had said to the house that he might have to rule the next day on the whole motion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member did not read the other quotation. I am referring to what Mr. Speaker said at the bottom of page 4531. Perhaps the hon. member would not mind reading that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to be unfair. Where is it I am skipping?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you will look at the bottom of page 4531, the second last line, and read from there on for three or four lines on the next page.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend is drawing my attention to the fact that Mr. Speaker said the night before that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman read it?

House of Commons


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely. It reads:
If hon. members care to debate this matter before I myself am heard on the subject, 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.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly. That is surely the whole point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is on my side of the argument. That proves Mr. Speaker had no notion prior to ten o'clock Thursday night of ruling this motion out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if you will also read the other quotation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Cardiff:: You are getting in deeper; you had better keep quiet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member wants to be fair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the case, and my point is that the Minister of Finance was grossly unfair, because as I pointed out he had not read the-


Donald D. Carrick: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is short; I am watching my time.


Donald D. Carrick: It is very short and it is this. Would you mind reading to the house the point in the second last paragraph on page 4531 where the Speaker said it seemed to him the thing to do was to postpone consideration of this motion. Does that not indicate he did not find a question of privilege existed and he wanted to postpone it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a fair enough question. All these points, Mr. Speaker, indicate that the Speaker was not sure when was the best time to debate it, that he was not sure how much of the two articles should be regarded as incriminatory. But there was no question about the validity of the motion, no question but that the motion itself was proper. I thank my hon. friend, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and the hon. member for Trinity for helping me out on this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman just let me put one other question? He says that there was no question raised about the validity of the motion. There was a question raised, which I think he will admit, by the leader of the house, the Minister of Finance, which is reported on page 4531 of Hansard of May 31. The point raised, as the hon. gentleman knows, was a completely valid point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether or not the point raised by the Minister of Finance was valid, and I concede that it might well be a valid one, that is not the point on which the Speaker ruled the motion out of order the next morning. The minister knows that just as well as I do. Just before I get too far away from this point, may I indicate what Mr. Speaker said, as reported at the bottom of the second column on page 4532:
As regards the article by Mr. Eugene Forsey, in which he writes under the title "About Closure, the Speaker, and Rights of Parliament", there may be more paragraphs there which are incriminatory, but certainly not the whole of the article. This is a matter on which I might perhaps give a ruling on a future occasion.
That followed the paragraph in which Mr. Speaker had singled out sentences in the other letter which in his view were incriminatory.


An hon. Member:: Three words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is not that what he based his ruling on?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. The next morning Mr. Speaker ruled that the whole motion was out of order. He did not at that time, as the Minister of Finance implied, contend that the point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg South Centre should not have been raised. On the other point, there was no suggestion by Mr. Speaker or no suggestion by anybody that the motion itself was out of order.
This is what represents the real problem, because next morning we had a complete turnabout. There was an attempt by the Prime Minister like that of the Minister of Finance. I mention the Prime Minister because he did the same thing as the Minister of Finance when he spoke on Monday, June 4, where he is reported at page 4655 of Hansard as follows:
You had already made it quite clear that you felt you might have to make a ruling upon the question at some time. On the following morning, when the matter was called, you did give the ruling that was cited in the Votes and Proceedings of June 1 by the Leader of the Opposition.
I say that is misleading. Mr. Speaker gave no indication the night before that he was going to make a ruling on the motion as a whole; the only indications he gave the night before were that he might have to rule on how much of the letters was incriminatory, plus the indication that he himself might wish to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is putting an interpretation on words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the only interpretation possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We simply do not agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friends opposite are doing their best to create the impression that Mr. Speaker came independently to the decision that he announced to the house on the morning of June 1, and we do not agree.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Do you suggest anything different?


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a known fact that the Minister of Finance went to Mr. Speaker's office after ten o'clock Thursday night.


George James McIlraith: It is a known fact that the hon. member for Kamloops went from his place up to the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I certainly did not go that night. On a question of privilege, in case that appears in Hansard, I most certainly deny that, because I did not go to the Speaker's chair that night.


George James McIlraith: I am not suggesting there was any impropriety in it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are stating what you know to be incorrect, just as you have on other occasions. I submit the hon. member should withdraw those words because he knows them to be incorrect.


George James McIlraith: I believe them to be the fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On this point I think I might read another sentence from the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, as follows:
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 overnight, so greatly to the government's advantage, the Speaker becomes exposed to opposition suspicion of having yielded to government pressure.


Mr. Pearson:: Innuendo.


William Earl Rowe: That is not innuendo, that is a fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are certain facts which are known to the minister of external affairs and he cannot set those facts aside even if he were to act in the manner the Minister of Finance did here this afternoon. I move on. That action was not the action of the Mr. Speaker whom I have known for the past seven years.
In addition we have this business of submitting a proposition to the house by Mr. Speaker for a majority decision. That has been discussed at great length, so I need not argue about it in theoretical or abstract terms. I am going to read some standing orders to show just how wrong this was. Standing order 41 reads:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or
House of Commons
address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house. Such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m., and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
That is a standing order which requires notices for certain kinds of motions and it permits certain exceptions, but what the Speaker put to the house was not one of those exceptions. What the Speaker put to the house might be regarded as coming under standing order 42, which reads:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the house without notice having been given under standing order 41.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I waited until the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had finished his speech because in accordance with certain recent directions I felt that was the proper way to do it. I ask you to direct that certain words of the hon. member for Ottawa West be stricken from the record, because they are not in accordance with the facts. If they are allowed to remain there they may create a wrong impression.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was referring to the fact that it was within the knowledge of members that the Minister of Finance had been to see the Speaker on Thursday night, the hon. member for Ottawa West put on the record words to the effect that I had been to see the Speaker.


George James McIlraith: That you had gone up to the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that is not correct. During that period when feelings were so tense I made it a point not to go to the chairman or the Speaker for the very reason that I did not feel it was correct for hon. members, and particularly for ministers, to be doing that at such a time. If I am going to criticize ministers for doing it I am not going to do it myself. I did not go to the chair or the Speaker during that period; therefore I wish to have those words removed from the record because they were put on there by the hon. member for Ottawa West to create an impression which the hon. member knows to be false.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member states that what I said is not in accordance with the facts and that he did not go to the

House of Commons
Speaker, then of course I completely accept his explanation and am prepared to withdraw my remarks. As to the latter part of the hon. member's remarks, of course hon. members well realize their propriety. That is another matter, but I shall withdraw my remarks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am grateful for the hon. member saying that he will withdraw; therefore if there was any impropriety in my other remarks I withdraw them outright. But I would ask that the remarks of the hon. member at that point be stricken from the record because if they were left there they would leave a false impression.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recall another occasion when there was difficulty about striking matters from the record. I do not feel that it is within my power to order this whole matter stricken from the record. The hon. member has raised his question of privilege and the hon. member for Ottawa West has withdrawn. In turn, the hon. member for Kamloops withdraws on his part, and I think the incident should be considered at an end. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as every other speaker who has taken part in this debate has said, it is an unpleasant experience which we are undergoing. It certainly is one in which no one participates with any degree of pleasure or satisfaction because I can say, as was said by the last speaker and by every other hon. gentleman, I think, who has taken part in this debate, that I have had the highest regard for Mr. Speaker and the other occupants of the chair coming under that title, and also a personal regard and a warm friendship as well. Therefore it is particularly unfortunate that we are faced, as we believe, with the necessity and the responsibility for proceeding with this matter at this time.
It perhaps would be a relatively easy thing to sit in one's seat and not take part in the debate, but because I feel strongly on this matter, because I feel that hon. members have a duty which has to be performed in this connection, I do not think any one of us should remain seated and hide behind someone else who is undertaking this responsibility and performing this task at this time. So, much as I regret it personally, I feel that I have a responsibility here as a member of parliament, as a member of the opposition, and I am exercising it tonight, though I certainly agree with many of the things which have been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

about His Honour the Speaker, and the personal relationships which have existed heretofore between us.
There is another reason why I rise to take part in this debate. I must say that I was somewhat shocked by the statement of the Prime Minister when he spoke in connection with this motion on Monday, June 4. The right hon. gentleman, after referring to the motion and quoting from an editorial, went on to say this about our action, as found at page 4654 of Hansard:
Not because of the qualities of the Speaker or the chairman but because of the fact that there is a contentious measure that is being opposed by all means that can be devised under the rules of the house to bring about delay and to waste time.
Again on page 4657 the Prime Minister said in a tone, I say with respect, of deepest sarcasm:
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 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.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that I for one resent the imputations which are contained in these two statements of the Prime Minister, and I regret that the Prime Minister has shown so little appreciation of the sense of this house and the sincerity of the feelings which have been aroused by the matters which have gone on during the past week that he would suggest that we would move this motion simply for the purpose of bringing about delay. All the irritations, all the frustrations which have occurred during the preceding weeks undoubtedly contributed to an unhealthy atmosphere, undoubtedly caused irritations on our side of the house as well, but those irritations in themselves would never have prompted this motion had it not been for the matters to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred a few minutes ago.
It was when we finally came to what I am afraid will go down in parliamentary history as black Friday that we were confronted with a situation where we felt that there was nothing else that could be done. When you see, Mr. Speaker, as you and others undoubtedly did, and as hon. members have indicated, reasonable men, experienced parliamentarians, some of whom have been here for almost a quarter of a century, so angered, so aroused that they had to use means which had never been used before in the Canadian parliament, you can judge to some extent of the intensity of the feelings of the members and the sincerity of the

feelings of the members of the opposition and of the Leader of the Opposition when he gave notice of this motion.
To suggest that we would impute, charge and indict an officer for whom so many have had the warmest personal feelings, one who personified within himself all the respect which is due the Chair; to suggest we would do that for partisan purposes is an implication which I resent, and that is one reason I am speaking on this motion tonight. Certainly, sir, if notice of this motion had been given for any of these purposes or there had been any suggestion of them I certainly would not be speaking at this time.
Then there is another reason why we are perhaps all the more interested in this now than we would have been heretofore. That is because of some of the academic discussions which have also arisen, and the suggestions as to the rights of the majority and of the minorities. No one questions the fact that a majority represented by the government has the responsibility for initiating legislation and seeing that it is properly debated in parliament, because parliament is the forum wherein that debate takes place, where public opinion is formulated, crystallized and so on and so forth.
But although one can appreciate the general philosophy, the general principle, that a majority cannot be continually obstructed or blocked by a minority, that proposition made in general certainly has no application whatsoever in the situation which developed here. If one wants authority for that one could refer, for instance, to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press which deals with this question of discussion of the rights of a majority and the rights of a minority. This is what the Winnipeg Free Press says:
The government has struggled for years with the pipe line problem.	Mr. Howe has made
decisions, found that they did not work, and made new decisions .	. . Eventually out of all
this confusion, there comes a bill. And Mr. Howe says, in effect: "Right, we've decided what's best for the country; time is short; whisk it through."
There is here something dangerously near the idea that the government's thinking is enough, and that parliament's argument in public, as the focus for popular thought and discussion, does not matter.
If one wants a further illustration of the working of democracy and the function of debate, I would recommend that the Secretary of State for External Affairs see that his book is properly distributed to the members on his own side of the house. One could take his book, "Democracy in World Politics" and occupy a lot of time tonight putting most interesting quotations on the record as to the functions of debate in parliament, the rights of an opposition to debate; how it
House of Commons
eliminates the dark corners, helps to crystallize public opinion and even reaches over the shoulders of a majority. I see the minister has the book in his hand. I am sure he would be glad to have many copies of it sold, and I hope that tonight he will perhaps reread it and then read the speech he made the other night and try to reconcile what he said in the book with what he said in the House of Commons as to the functions of an opposition and a majority in this parliament.
Dealing with this matter, I should like to call the attention of that distinguished former president of the Canadian Bar Association, the Prime Minister, to a statement of principle laid down by the Canadian Bar Association a few years ago, when they said:
Under democratic institutions, the people accept to be governed by majority decisions, but on condition that the laws should be discussed in the open, traversed by the criticisms of the opposition and be the result of a free and enlightened decision of parliament.
I wonder how much discussion there is when the motion is that further consideration be postponed? How much discussion is there when the Leader of the Opposition, rising time after time to speak on a matter, is refused recognition by the occupant of the chair at that time, in violation of all the ancient usages and principles of this house and of other parliamentary houses?
Never before was such a spectacle seen. On four different occasions the Leader of the Opposition stood in his place, as he had a right to do, and with respect, and the Chair should have recognized him. But each time the Chair refused to recognize him. Despite all this-I say despite these irritations, despite these frustrations, despite the intensity of feeling which was engendered-this motion would not have been made had it not been for what happened on that Friday morning.
I am not going to deal with that matter in detail. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has outlined it substantially in so far as precedents and citations are concerned. May I just go back before that for a moment. If we accept this matter to which I referred a moment ago, namely the fact of the relative importance of the position of the majority in comparison with that of the minority, I suggest we are going back to the principles which prevailed 500 years ago when parliament consisted of the king's men, with the pocket boroughs and all the rest, and when the executive were in the king's pocket. It was against that arbitrary rule that we finally developed through the centuries these principles which were incorporated in this book to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred a while

House of Commons
ago. I refer to our standing orders, our rules and all the citations which preceded them. That was what evolved through the centuries.
Where are we now? As has been pointed out, because of what happened on Friday morning, in a very few minutes all of this which had happened before was scrapped and apparently thrown out the window. The Leader of the Opposition, on rising to continue a speech he had started the night before in a debate which had been adjourned in the regular way, was knocked down almost as quickly as if he had been pole-axed. He was stopped dead and ordered to sit down. He was given no opportunity to speak; he was given no opportunity to continue the debate. He was refused that right. He was even refused the right to raise a point of order and he was told by Mr. Speaker, "You have your remedy; you can appeal".
We listened to the Minister of Finance this afternoon in a long, technical, legalistic argument which I am afraid did not go too far toward defence of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but which perhaps at least put the Minister of Finance on record as having intervened in some way in this matter by a speech. What did the Minister of Finance say this afternoon? What was the whole motive and theme of his statement? It was that these appeals from the Speaker's rulings are always political, and everyone knows they are political. He said it was unfortunate that was the case but that you had to have these political decisions; and he was almost suggesting and hoping that perhaps some day we would be able to obviate the necessity for appeals from Speakers' rulings; that is, purely political appeals.
Then I would refer you to the statement of Mr. Speaker on Friday morning, as recorded at page 4542 of Hansard, when refusing the Leader of the Opposition the right to speak. He went on to say this:
... I propose not to make a ruling but to submit this position to the judgment of the house. If the house decides in favour of it, then we shall govern ourselves accordingly.
Then later on he said to the Leader of the Opposition, "You have your right; you can appeal to the house". What right was there? What justification was there, Mr. Speaker, for stopping that debate when it was stopped and for refusing to give the Leader of the Opposition even a chance to be heard?
Then later on we had that other unprecedented move that was made, this formulation of a proposition or submission to the house by the Speaker in which he attempted to reverse himself and take us back 24 hours into the previous day instead of having the

debate carried on in the way in which it should have been carried on. At page 4552 of Hansard I notice that it is put in the form of a motion: "Those who are in favour of this motion, will please say yea". Who made the motion, Mr. Speaker? Certainly not Mr. Speaker. Certainly no one on the government side of the house.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was very vociferous tonight in his defence of Mr. Speaker by interjection; but I did not notice any of them rising at any time when these discussions were on to help Mr. Speaker. I did not notice any of them answering points of order. As someone has said, Mr. Speaker had to carry the whole load himself. They sat back and allowed him to do it, or at least they did not help Mr. Speaker in any way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member will
admit that on the previous Thursday evening the Minister of Finance raised a point of order about the alleged point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as soon as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre sat down before six o'clock, and the minister raised the same point of order in an interruption of the Leader of the Opposition shortly before ten o'clock and in neither case-although the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre virtually admitted his point of order was valid-did he get a ruling.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to my hon. friend asking a question, but as I said a moment ago he has been very reluctant to get into this debate so far. I certainly do not want him to be deprived of that privilege, but I do not want him to make a speech in the middle of mine. Later on he will have an opportunity to speak if he desires to take advantage of it.
I was referring a moment ago to the fact that at page 4552 you have the usual phrasing or phraseology but it is most unusual having regard to the background: "Those who are in favour of this motion will please say yea". No motion had been made whatsoever. So we had that situation, namely that in one short morning Mr. Speaker had reversed himself with regard to what he had done the night before; he had refused debate; he made a submission from the Chair which, with deference, I suggest was unwarranted and submitted it; and then he set the clock back 24 hours.
I think it can be summed up in one way, Mr. Speaker. For some reason Mr. Speaker acted as a wrecking crew to get back on the

rails the government locomotive which had been so effectively derailed the night before, and without his intervention it never could have been put back on the rails. That is what happened. It was then, and only then, that we saw in the house the scenes which took place and to which reference has been made in the press time and time again. It was after that had occurred that the Leader of the Opposition gave notice of this motion, which the Prime Minister said was made for the purpose of delaying debate. I say that it was not made for that reason in any way shape or form.
Much has been said about intervention. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Finance who spoke this afternoon. As I said, he gave a refined, legalistic argument about the rules of the House of Commons. I noticed that there were some things with which he did not deal. I know that my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs must have read with a great deal of interest the comments which have appeared in the press lately, and particularly the editorial comments of a gentleman named Mr. Norman Smith who is a liberal certainly with a small "1" if not with a capital "L". He is one who sat here and observed these proceedings. He is well known to some hon. gentlemen opposite and is a personal friend of many. Certainly he could never be accused of making any political capital for the Conservative party. But as a disinterested observer, as a man who has travelled the world over and seen some of the scenes of disorder, some of the dissolutions of parliaments to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred the other evening, and who has travelled with him, what does he say about the events of Friday morning. He says the Liberal party tore up the rule book, and not only tore up the rule book but part of his national pride in citizenship. Moreover, they went about their tasks with a gladsome thumping of desks. Certainly, Mr. Speaker is not responsible for the thumping of desks, but that epitomizes the situation just about as succinctly, just as about as fairly as anything that could be said.
There are many things that could be read from these articles which would be very unkind. I do not want to put them on the record. Mr. Smith goes out of his way to say, and it is certainly true, that these gentlemen are not fascists; they are not commun-nists. He said they are just ignorant, and ignorance was the kindest thing that could be said about them. I think probably that is about as fair an observation as could be made. In his column Mr. Smith also goes on to say-it is unfortunate the Minister of Finance did not deal with this point this afternoon-
House of Commons
that there were notes passing back and forth between the government leader and Mr. Speaker. Sometimes other cabinet ministers were used as office boys. Finally, when the notes were intercepted, the house leader became more astute and went out into the lobby to pick up the notes carried back and forth.
Those are the facts as set forth by Mr. Norman Smith. I was hoping that this afternoon the Minister of Finance would give some explanation or stand up, as the hon. member for Kamloops did a while ago, and deny them very pointedly. No; we heard long appeals about fairness in a political situation such as this, but certainly nothing which went to any of these matters that have been referred to in the local newspapers printed here in Ottawa and which have certainly come to the attention of all who were involved in the situation. Certainly, I thought they would have been dealt with this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. gentleman another question?


George Clyde Nowlan: No; make your speech afterwards. You will have plenty of time. At least, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the chair these things should be dealt with; they should be explained. At least this could be said for King James when he came into the House of Commons; he took control of the chair and threw the Speaker out of it. He did not skulk behind the chair, and that is more than a suggestion of what has gone on around this place.


An hon. Member:: What king did you say?


George Clyde Nowlan: King James; but you have a better knowledge of history than I and perhaps it was Charles, at any rate one of the Stuarts. It was three hundred years ago. I can understand why the minister would be a better authority than I am because the government is repeating the same procedure that was carried on in those days. He probably made a study of the technique that was used, but I say at least the Stuarts took over the chair. I have even heard the remark that once in this house when the chairman was refusing to "see" an hon. member, some hon. member was so exasperated he may have gone up and twisted the chairman's head around and said, "Now can you see him?" But at any rate neither he nor the Stuart king skulked behind the chair.
At any rate, there were those events of black Friday for which there has been no explanation. We all know that Mr. Speaker was under tremendous difficulty. We know he was tired. We know he had been sitting in that chair under a terriffic strain. We recognize all those things, and the same would apply of course to his assistants, the deputy

House of Commons
and the deputy chairman. However, that does not explain what happened; that cannot explain this reversal which took place on Friday morning.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Finance talk about his great qualities, his experience, his personality, none of which is denied. This makes it all the more difficult to understand why he acted the way he did on Friday morning. A less experienced man, one who had made many mistakes before, one who was not conversant with the rules, one who was not a thorough gentleman, could have been expected to crack up under the pressure of some of the things which were done. It is because of that complete reversal, because of this background that suggestions, call them innuendoes if you like, have been made deliberately in the press as to what has gone on; and yet no explanation has been given.
It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, to have this motion before us. We regret the necessity for it, but it was time it was dealt with. It had to be dealt with. Parliament could not continue, and how it is going to continue I do not know. A while ago the Minister of Finance said he hoped that after this was disposed of personal friendships could be restored. I hope so too. Personal friendships are something which we all value. One of the great traditions of our parliamentary system is that we do not allow the acrimony of debate on public matters to interfere with personal relationships and personal friendships. But personal friendships be as they may, the fact remains that parliament cannot carry on unless there is implicit confidence in the Chair, its impartiality and its independence of the executive. This confidence has gone. I say with all the seriousness which I can command, Mr. Speaker, that confidence cannot be restored in this parliament. There is only one way.
Someone suggested a while ago, and I thought it was another innuendo, that perhaps we were bringing this on to force an election. We are certainly not bringing this on to force an election. There are other ways if we wanted to do that which could perhaps be explored. I do say that although this certainly was not brought on with any such intention, the root problem will not be solved until after an election, until after a new government and a new house have come back and new officials have been elected. Then perhaps we can start to rebuild and repair the damage which was done during the last few days.
As has been said by so many others more effectively than I can say it, it is not a matter

of the ruling on Friday; it is not the special damage which may have been done to one party or the assistance which may have been given to another, serious as those things may be, but the fact that these are part of the precedents of the House of Commons. They have become part of the fabric and will become interwoven into our parliamentary procedure.
They cannot be allowed to exist in that way, Mr. Speaker. Something will have to be done under a new parliament to eradicate these things and restore the prestige of the Chair. It is for that reason we feel as strongly as we do, and why I am speaking on this motion tonight. It is parliament, the institution which we have revered, which we respect and which the thousands of people who were lining up trying to get into the galleries revered and respected as well. It is indeed woven into the warp and woof of our being, and damage has been done to it-I was going to say almost irreparable damage. It is irreparable under the existing circumstances. I think it can be rectified in time, but it is a matter which must be dealt with by this house.
A partisan vote may be necessary. I quite appreciate, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said this afternoon, that may be the result. I have no illusions, either, as to the result of this vote, but it will be recorded in Hansard that the opposition has stood up and protected what it sincerely believed to be the rights of parliament. The opposition has gone further than any one individual would have gone to preserve those rights, and that will probably be the most healthy precedent of all which will come out of this turmoil and trouble of the past few weeks.


Walter Edward Harris: I rise on a question of personal privilege. I was engaged with my officials on some matters which may come before the house later, and I was absent when the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was speaking. I understand he made some reference to a newspaper article that had to do with the passing of notes, and inquired as to why I had not already mentioned the matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: I said I expected you would have dealt with the matter this afternoon.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not because up to that time no one had mentioned it or taken the responsibility of speaking on the point or making any assertion that there was any truth whatever in the statement. That is why I did not mention it this afternoon.
I wish to point out that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did rise on a point of

personal privilege with respect to this other article the other day. That was because he was quoted in the article. Nothing in this article quotes me, but I shall read it for the benefit of hon. members and make an explanation.


George Clyde Nowlan: Just so there will not be any misunderstanding, the Minister of Finance is quoting from a different article. I quoted from Norman Smith.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not read Norman
Smith's article.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the article I quoted from.


Walter Edward Harris: I have no doubt it applies to the same thing-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, while no one will question the right of the minister to rise on a question that relates to real privilege, he certainly cannot rise in regard to a quotation from one editorial and then start to read another. If he has any comment to make about the one that was read, that certainly could be a question of privilege; but most certainly there can be no question of privilege relating to that which would make it permissible to read some other editorial.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the editorial complained of makes reference to my exchange of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. Just before the Minister of Finance continues, in order to know where we are at this particular point of privilege, I think we have had to state several times in the last few weeks that where a member wished to contest a reference to himself made during a speech, he had the right to do that as a matter of personal explanation following the speech. I think that is admitted. Should this turn out to be a different question of privilege from the one arising out of the speech of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, then of course it would be brought up on the orders of the day. I would gather from what has been said that it does refer to the same incident; therefore I think, under our recently established practice of personal explanation at the end of a speech, that this is the time for the Minister of Finance to do it.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is-I regret that I cannot express it perhaps correctly because I did not hear what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings actually said-that there is a statement that I exchanged notes with the chairman, and
House of Commons
there is a reference to an occasion when I spoke to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.
Let me speak about that for one moment. I noticed that Mr. Speaker appeared to be, shall I say, distraught or ill at ease. I spoke to my medical colleague and suggested to him it might be desirable to find out whether Mr. Speaker needed any medical attention. That was all I did that day with respect to my colleague, and whether or not he sent anything to Mr. Speaker under those circumstances I do not know.
With respect to the chairman of the committee, let me point out that I spoke to the chairman of the committee after I had been informed by those who inquired how or under what circumstances this report could have arisen, and I was informed by him that it is his courtesy to notify whips of parties that they have a speaker coming up in a few moments, or something of that nature; that it had been done all during that day and that the reporter must have seen this happen, and that the thing being sent by the chairman of the committee was one of those notes. I received no note whatever from the chairman, nor did I send any to him. Nothing that is in the newspaper I read has any basis of fact in so far as my making communication of that kind :s concerned.


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Chairman, on a further question of privilege, I want to corroborate what the Minister of Finance has said. I ordered the cheapest prescription in the world, a glass of water. I think it was Christ who said, "a glass of water in my name shall not go unrewarded."


John George Diefenbaker: Oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, let me trace the history of the motion that has been under discussion tonight in order to put the record straight in some aspects of the distortions that have been made of the proceedings. You will recall, sir, that when I rose on a question of privilege I was instructed by Mr. Speaker that it would be necessary for me to follow a certain procedure if I wished to pursue the matter. He outlined that procedure to me and I followed it. It included the drafting of a motion, the finding of an hon. member to second it, and sending the motion to the Speaker in the chair.
There has been the suggestion here this evening that Mr. Speaker was in doubt at that time as to whether the motion was in order; that he had in fact almost decided

House of Commons
on the Thursday night that on Friday he would have to rule it out of order. I can well understand why my hon. friends in the cabinet should wish to convey that impression; but I suggest to you, sir, that it is a continuation of the cruel and callous treatment which that cabinet has meted out to the Speaker of this house. It is a determination that he shall be made the goat all the way down.
I am going to quote from page 4532 of Hansard to show that Mr. Speaker not only had no doubt that it was in order but so indicated to the house at that time, because he interrupted the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking with these words:
Order. I intervene at this moment to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that in debating this matter one cannot go beyond what is considered privilege. In this article which I have just read it is my view that what may be called privilege in the letter written by Miss Marjorie Le Lacheur is the last paragraph:
"It means nothing to them that debate in the house has long been a farce, with the cat-calls and jeers of the Liberals, and the systematic garroting of the opposition by Mr. Speaker ..." These are the words:
"... and the systematic garroting of the opposition by Mr. Speaker, making a mockery of this democracy for which so many of their fathers have died."
The words that are privilege are "the systematic garroting of the opposition by Mr. Speaker". All the other words are not privilege.
Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar raised the question at that point as to whether the narrowing of the points of privilege suggested by the Speaker was in fact correct and suggested that it was more or less an attack on the whole house. Following that, Mr. Speaker reiterated his position and in the paragraph the Minister of Finance did not read this afternoon Mr. Speaker said this:
I am under the impression-and I am sure the hon. member upon reflection will agree with me- that, freedom of the press being what it is, freedom of expression outside this parliament and the right of criticising whatever takes place here being what it is, no one on a question of privilege should object to the first two paragraphs and, even in the third paragraph, no one should object to anything if there were not those few words, in which the Speaker is accused of a systematic garroting of the opposition. As far as the other paragraphs are concerned, I see no privilege at all in them.
Now, there is the clear statement of the Speaker of this house that he recognized that my motion was in order the night before, and any contention now on the part of members of the cabinet that he had already half made up his mind to rule it out of order is a gross distortion of Mr. Speaker's expressed views on the evening of Thursday, May 31. When he ruled it out of order on Friday, June 1, he did not actually rule on the question as to whether or not my motion was in order. I had 
brought a motion before the house. Mr. Speaker ruled not whether my motion was in order but whether the charges contained in the motion were sustainable. When he reversed his decision of the night before I was faced with the question as to what had induced him to do so, and I could think of only three alternatives.
The first was that my motion was actually out of order, that Mr. Speaker had been mistaken, that his knowledge and understanding of the rules of procedure had not been adequate to make a decision as to whether or not my motion was in order. After all that has been said on all sides of the house both this afternoon and on previous occasions when this matter has been discussed, no hon. member will seriously contend that the Speaker of this house is not competent to decide whether or not a motion is in order. We have had very lengthy eulogies concerning his vast fund of knowledge of parliamentary procedure. It has been stated that with the possible exception of one Speaker our present Speaker stands head and shoulders above the usual speakers of the Canadian House of Commons in possessing an exhaustive knowledge of the rules of procedure.
I think we have to throw that suggestion out. Mr. Speaker at that time knew this motion was in order; he was not just guessing, he knew it and he expressed to the house, as I have shown quite clearly, his reasons for thinking it was in order.
That brings me to my next possible alternative for his extraordinary action on the morning of Friday, June 1; and that is that Mr. Speaker maliciously and deliberately gave me wrong advice with the intention of ruling it out of order at a later date. That also is a proposition to which I cannot subscribe; it goes against all the past record of Mr. Speaker. Not only that, it cannot be sustained when one places it alongside Mr. Speaker's reactions not only on this occasion but on a previous occasion when I raised a similar question of privilege with regard to an editorial appearing in a Montreal newspaper. On both those occasions Mr. Speaker expressed himself as gravely concerned over the seriousness of these situations. In fact when the much publicized attempt of the Minister of Finance to raise a point of order on this particular motion was brought to the attention of the house Mr. Speaker had this to say:
The matter raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) is one of privilege and is one that is very serious. I had not seen the letter entitled "They Will Pay" but I had read the letter written by Mr. Eugene Forsey, in which he discusses instances in which I was myself involved. 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.
Now it is true he suggested postponement of it, but he also referred to our having placed ourselves in a position where we could do something about it. The reference very clearly is to a motion which he considered to be in order. No, sir; I cannot believe that the Speaker deliberately and maliciously gave me faulty advice in order later to be able to rule the motion out of order. It was a matter he took too seriously to play ducks and drakes with on any cynical basis of that sort.
Now, we have to seek for some other reason. The only reason that comes to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is that in those fateful hours between 10 o'clock on the night of May 31 and 11 o'clock on the morning of June 1 the Speaker of this house must have been subjected to persuasion, to pressure, to evil counsel of some sort to persuade him to declare out of order a motion which he himself had accepted, had helped to draft, and which he had indicated was definitely in order.
It is not possible, of course, Mr. Speaker, for us to know who can have given that advice; but that such advice must have been given is I think incontrovertible. And while we cannot know who gave that advice we do know of people in a position to give that advice, and we do know of people to whom the implementation of such advice would have been of great advantage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the way Senator McCarthy talks.


Colin Cameron: I am not coming to McCarthy at all; I am coming to a few other things. The Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons occupies a precarious position of eminence from which at the end of the life of parliament he has to step down. There are a number of positions of dignity and honour, positions in which he can hope to find further opportunities for public service. All those positions are within the power of the government of the day to grant or to withhold.
It has been suggested that Mr. Speaker proceeded to reverse a mistake he had made. I submit, sir, that if that is true with regard to other actions he took on that occasion, the action of listening to the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, it is distinctly not the case with regard to this motion, because if you will recall he handled the two situations in an entirely different manner. His decision with regard to my motion was not included as a part of
House of Commons
the mistake he sought to rectify by placing a proposition before this house. It is an entirely different action. He took the action of ruling it out of order. Somewhere, at some time, he was persuaded that his action of the night before in accepting and helping to draft my motion had been out of order. Somehow he was persuaded that the motion itself was out of order.
I find it difficult to believe, sir, that among his colleagues on the other side of the house the Speaker of the House of Commons found someone more versed in the procedure of this chamber than himself, in the light of the fact that with the rather doubtful exception of the Minister of Finance no member of the cabinet has risen through all this time to oppose the points of order raised from the opposition. This would lead me and I think anyone else to the conclusion that there is not anyone on the other side of the house now capable of disputing the points of order raised from this side.
I see that the Minister of Finance laughs. If by his laughter he means that he or others are so capable, then I say it was a contemptible thing for the government of the day to allow the Speaker of this house to deal by himself with the points of order that were raised continually from this side of the house, to place him in the impossible position not of being the judge as between two opposing sides but having to take up the arguments presented by one side. I am still of the opinion, sir, that there is not anyone on that side of the house sufficiently versed in procedure to be able to give valid and honest advice to the Speaker of this house to cause him to reverse a considered decision that he had made.
I have been puzzled, as have many other hon. members of this house, by the strange procedural activities of this government during the whole presentation of the pipe-lines bill to the house. I have wondered why they apparently took great thought to select the most difficult ways in which to get this measure through. The first sample, of course, was when quite out of order they placed a second resolution on the order paper while one dealing with the same subject was already there. That was a totally unnecessary proceeding. I recall that at that time the government received advice from my hon. friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to how they could emerge from the difficulty they had themselves created.
I suggest to you that we have to look further for a solution to this strange problem, and it is a strange problem, a strange problem of a government so inept that it is unable to get its measures through the House

House of Commons
of Commons within the accepted rules of this house. I would suggest to you that perhaps an explanation can be found in the constitution of the present administration. I think it is no accident that the government that has involved itself in a most fantastic tangle of procedure, that has been driven in the course of that tangle to utterly destroy the most notable Speaker this house has seen for decades. It is not an accident that many of the members of that administration have stepped right into cabinet positions without any experience in parliamentary life.
I would suggest to you that this has been the root cause of the trouble through which we have been going the last few years, and the last few days in particular. When one looks at the front treasury benches he finds that with two exceptions no minister has sat on the floor of this house as a private member, and no minister at all has sat on the floor of this house as a member in opposition. This creates a very grave situation for parliament. I am not attempting to deny that eminent university presidents, distinguished corporation lawyers and higher civil servants are men of great ability. They are possibly of greater ability than other men who could be found within the membership of the Liberal party; but their abilities were not the abilities of parliamentarians because there is only one place in which a man can qualify for this difficult business of parliamentary life, and that is in the ranks of parliament itself.
I would suggest that this growing habit on the part of this administration of bringing in from outside the ranks of parliament cabinet ministers without parliamentary experience is destroying the very roots of parliament. This institution has several functions to perform. It is not merely an institution for the passing of legislation by the existing government, it is the developing ground for competent parliamentary leadership.
When we have a party-and I address this to the rank and file of the Liberal party- which has acquiesced in this practice, it has been acquiescing in the degradation of parliament because these men, eminent as they are, lack one thing. They are men who have not, like the Minister of Finance and like the Minister of National Health and Welfare, been prepared in their earlier years to take the grave risks involved in embarking upon a political career. On the other hand, they have sought their eminence in other fields and later come to crown it with political eminence. That is a most dangerous precedent and practice for parliament to follow, when parliament should be composed of ordinary men and women representing ordinary men and women throughout the nation.

From the ranks of the membership must come those men who have developed their capacities and their abilities to use the procedures and rules of parliament in order to effect their policies. I can understand that the minister of external affairs may perhaps feel badly about my comments, but I want to say to him that the very qualities which made him a valuable servant of the people in the civil service are not qualities that make him valuable in the House of Commons when it comes to dealing with difficult parliamentary situations. He never had to face them during his earlier career.
It will not be until we get back to the original purposes of parliament, to the original proceedings and traditions of parliament, that we shall avoid the sort of tragic mess into which we got last week. I think it is a damning indictment of a government with an overwhelming majority that it should have been unable to devise means of using the regular procedures of this house to effect the passage of their legislation. It is an admission of total ineptitude and failure as leaders of the Canadian parliament that they had to take recourse to breaches of the rules which have led to this unhappy debate during these last two days. It is particularly tragic that a man who had earned not only the respect of this parliament but the respect of the nation should have been made the victim of the ineptitude of this government, and ineptitude it was, as I think every member of it now recognizes in his secret heart.
I would suggest that there is no solution to be found in the mere passing or rejection of the motion before us. As the Minister of Finance has said, when it comes to a vote the matter will be decided on party lines and the vote will mean nothing. A vote will not in any way obliterate the sad fact that a large minority in this house has had its confidence in the impartiality of the Chair destroyed by the ineptitude and folly of the present administration.
I notice that some members of the cabinet are so little seized of the seriousness of the crime they have committed as to smile smugly about this situation. It is nothing to smile about, it is something that has to be cleared up. I am not making any empty suggestion when I suggest to the Prime Minister that he has something to retrieve. I am not alone in my view that he has failed sadly this parliament and this country in these last strenuous and trying days.
I imagine he has read the newspapers. I imagine he realizes that the people of Canada are disappointed that they had hoped he could master the art of using parliamentary procedures, that they hoped he could retain

control of the democratic processes of this country. I suggest to him that, having failed to do so, there is only one course open to him, the course of appealing to the people and allowing them to judge. I say this in no boastful way at all. I am not at all sure that I would come back here after another election; far from it. I think it is quite possible that I might be left at home, but I would rather be left at home than continue in the unhappy situation in which we are today.
Despite the words that have been said on this side of the house in, I think, all sincerity that this situation is not going to be allowed to interfere with the personal friendships that have been developed here, I am afraid that is a too optimistic point of view and that it is going to take a long time for the resentments, the rancours and the dis-illusionments that have been created over the last week or so to finally disappear. The first and essential step for clearing the air is that the twenty-second parliament of Canada should come to an end at the earliest possible moment.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that whatever may have happened in the house during the past few days we will all agree that the discussion of this particular motion has been approached by every hon. member almost throughout in a spirit at least of seemingly objective manner. I paid particular attention to the speech delivered tonight by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I followed with interest the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Nanaimo and the speech of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, but I paid special attention to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
He began his remarks by saying that this discussion of the motion before the house caused him to have a heavy heart. I am sure he used a phrase that most hon. gentlemen could, with justification repeat. He reminded us that there was no friendship in this house that he cherished as much as his friendship with Mr. Speaker. He told us that there was never a Speaker in this house whose industry was as great, that there never was a Speaker with knowledge of our procedures and the procedures of free parliaments over the course of the centuries as great, as precise and as mature.
Then he said that he hoped that his friendship with the Speaker would be maintained
House of Comvions
and would continue. Only a man who was lacking in the elements of civility would deny that that was a legitimate hope. I too hope that the friendship which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had with Mr. Speaker will be maintained, for I suppose that no one in the whole time I have been a member of the House of Commons, now almost 21 years, has enjoyed in his relations in this house as great a measure of cordial relationship with the presiding officer as the member for Winnipeg North Centre. On many occasions his enthusiasm with respect to his interest in the rules of the house would cause him, not improperly, after the Speaker's ruling had been made, to go to the Speaker's chair and presumably in a spirit of academic interest, which is understandable, discuss with Mr. Speaker the wisdom or lack of wisdom in a particular decision. The hon. gentleman himself and only he has the control over whether or not the friendship of which he has spoken tonight shall be maintained.
The hon. member went on then and said, and I use his words, that no one will deny that Mr. Speaker has done a good job. Then he raised his voice and said with emotion: "No one ever in my time in this house has done a better job." Then he went on and pointed out that he had corrected the Minister of Finance, that there had only been two appeals from Mr. Speaker's rulings and that on one occasion the party which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre supports had, if I understood him correctly, refused to join in voting against the Speaker's ruling. Then my hon. friend concluded, "No wonder I say that Mr. Speaker has had in this house a remarkable performance."
I calculated by the clock the time that my hon. friend spent on Mr. Speaker's admirable qualities. In over two-thirds of the time he spoke the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said more things by way of' confirmation of the validity of the performance of the Speaker than any other member, and we can only conclude from what he has said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, up until a very few days ago, was firmly of the view that within his experience this house has had no better Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Martin the debate was adjourned.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame: de Grace):
1.	By provinces, how many sufferers from diabetes are there in Canada?
2.	How many of these are hospitalized?
3.	Is the government currently engaged in any activities designed directly to assist Canadian diabetics?
4.	If so, of what nature?
5.	Are any further measures to assist Canadian diabetics currently under consideration?
6.	If so, of what nature?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	There is no accurate gauge of the number of diabetics in Canada. According to preliminary estimates based on Canada's sickness survey, population basis 13,000,000, there are about 40,000 known diabetics; however, medical experience has shown that for every reported case, there are about three unreported cases.
2.	There are approximately 8,500 hospital admissions per year in Canada of patients requiring treatment for diabetes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Federal assistance totalling more than $65,000 has been provided under the national health program to support research and surveys on the detection of diabetes. Research in diabetic problems is being supported at present at the University of Western Ontario and at Queen's University.
The Food and Drugs Act provides that all insulin preparations must meet the standards set forth in the food and drug regulations. In addition, the conditions under which these preparations are manufactured are constantly reviewed by the food and drug inspectors. The regulations also provide for specific labelling requirements to prevent confusion regarding the potency and the use of each preparation.
The advertisement to the general public of any preparation for the prevention or treatment of diabetes is prohibited by the act, thus preventing the exposure of diabetics to useless or harmful preparations.
The food and drug regulations also require informative labelling of special food products sold for persons on sugar-restricted diets.
5 and 6. The Department of National Health and Welfare will continue to give the most careful consideration to any projects designed
to assist Canadian diabetics when submitted by the provinces under the national health program.


URBAN AIR POLLUTION
Mr. Richardson: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare taking any part in the solution of the urban air pollution problem?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1. Yes. The Department of National Health and Welfare has assisted the international joint commission for several years in the investigation of the problem of air pollution in the Windsor-Detroit area in accordance with the terms of the reference of January, 1949, between Canada and the United States. A two-year epidemiological study of sickness experience of selected groups of the population in high and low pollution areas of Windsor, and in small country towns of southern Ontario, was carried out from 1953 to 1955. Other aspects of this investigation of the urban air pollution problem have dealt with the nature and concentration of contaminants in the environment, the influence of meteorological factors, the problem of smoke emission from great lakes vessel traffic on the Detroit river and its control, and the effects on vegetation. A final report on the above reference is being prepared this year.
Since January 1, 1956, this department has also undertaken certain responsibilities in this field with the appointment of a consultant, atmospheric pollution services, who is also the chairman of the Canadian section of a technical advisory board to the international joint commission. Requests for advisory services from the provinces and other governmental agencies have been coming forward on an increasing scale. The following is an outline of these activities:
(a)	The pollution of the air from oil refinery operations involving the emission of toxic substances such as hydrogen sulphide, mercaptans, phenols, and other odoriferous compounds.
(b)	The control of emissions of fluorides, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide from contemplated operations of a new phosphate fertilizer and nitro-chemical plant.
(c)	The analysis and control of diesel exhaust gas fumes from engine-operated equipment in underground and mining operations.
(d)	At the request of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada a complete revision has been undertaken of regulations and orders dealing with

control of atmospheric pollution from railroad operations of companies subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
The epidemiological and occupational health divisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare are collaborating in a study of atmospheric pollution levels and their possible effects on the health of aged hospital patients in the Ottawa area.
The laboratory services of the occupational health division are conducting laboratory research directed towards the study of the biological effects of various toxic gases and
Questions
aerosols, including the effects of substances found in contaminated urban atmospheres. The laboratory services have also studied for several years the problem of atmospheric pollution from gold refining operations in the Yellowknife area.
Consideration is being given to the possibility of the establishment of a national network of sampling stations for the measurement of atmospheric contamination levels in urban areas of Canada in co-operation with provincial departments of health, municipal air pollution control officials and certain federal departments.

GATT-Tariff Revisions


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
The Department of External Affairs announced today details of the tariff agreements which were negotiated under the general agreement on tariffs and trade at the recently concluded conference in Geneva. The head of the Canadian delegation, Mr. L. D. Wilgress, signed on behalf of Canada on May 23 the protocol of supplementary concessions to the GATT in which are incorporated the complete schedules of all the tariff concessions negotiated at the conference. Details of the agreements were tabled in the House of Commons this morning.
The tariff conference, which opened in January, 1956, and was recently concluded at Geneva, constitutes the fourth general round of multilateral tariff negotiations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, following similar GATT conferences held at Geneva in 1947, at Annecy in 1949 and at Torquay in 1951. Twenty-two countries participated in these latest negotiations, and the new agreements concluded among them are an extension of the agreements drawn up among GATT countries in the previous years. As in the past, the negotiations were carried on between pairs or groups of countries, on a selective product by product basis.
Canada negotiated new agreements with the United States and with 12 other countries in Europe and Latin America. Under the most favoured nation principle, which is basic to the GATT, all tariff concessions agreed to at Geneva will become available to Canada whether or not these concessions were negotiated directly with Canada. Similarly, Canada will automatically extend its own tariff concessions to each of the other participating countries, and to non-GATT countries with which Canada has most favoured nation agreements.
The complete schedules of all tariff concessions negotiated at this conference are being made public today. They are incorporated in a protocol of supplementary concessions to the GATT signed by representatives of participating countries at Geneva. Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Canadian ambassador to NATO, signed this protocol on behalf of Canada on May 23.
The new tariff concessions will come into affect in the various countries on dates to be announced by each government. It is not expected that any country will bring its concessions into effect until June 30 at the earliest. United States concessions will be implemented in three stages over the next two years, as required by United States legislation. Under the terms of the GATT, all the
concessions agreed upon are bound against increase, subject to certain procedures permitting countries to renegotiate particular concessions from time to time.
The following review indicates the main concessions secured by Canada and the main concessions granted by Canada as a result of these negotiations. For further details, inquiries should be addressed to the international trade relations branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce with respect to the tariffs of other countries, and to the international economic relations division of the Department of Finance with respect to the Canadian tariff.
Concessions Obtained by Canada
The United States
The United States concluded agreements at this conference with Canada and all the other participating countries, and granted concessions over a wide range of goods. The agreement concluded between Canada and the United States was one of the major single agreements resulting from this conference.
The United States conducted these negotiations under the authority of its trade agreements legislation, which permits maximum reductions in the United States tariff of about 15 per cent of the rates of duty in force on January 1, 1955. Under United States legislation, these reductions must be implemented in three approximately equal steps of about 5 per cent of present rates, with an intervening period of 12 months between each stage. The first 5 per cent stage of United States duty reductions will be made effective on June 30, 1956. Within these limitations, Canada secured the maximum possible reductions in United States duties over a large number of products. Concessions were obtained on almost all the items of interest to Canada on which the United States was prepared to negotiate. The delay in the complete implementation of United States concessions was taken fully into account by both countries in arriving at a satisfactory balance of concessions.
The United States schedule of concessions resulting from this conference contains some 650 tariff items, of which approximately 150 are of interest to Canadian exporters, and represent imports into the United States from Canada totalling over $200 million in 1954. These concessions include items of interest to Canadian producers and manufacturers in various regions of Canada.
The United States list of concessions includes a variety of chemical products, such

as synthetic rubber, vinyl acetate, vanillin, barytes and a number of chemical compounds; a number of metals, including crude aluminum and its alloys, aluminum bars and sheets, steel ingots and billets, ferro-silicon; a few agricultural products, such as lettuce, turnips, hay, blueberries; some paper products, such as book and printing paper, wrapping paper and hanging paper; a number of more highly processed products, such as manufactures of aluminum, of iron and steel, of wood, and of glass, various types of machinery and electrical goods.
Details of the main items of interest to Canada, showing the present United States rates of duty and the final United States negotiated rates of duty which will be in force at the end of two years, are given below. A table showing the three stages of reduction for all items of interest to Canada is being published by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Chemicals
Concessions were obtained on the following
products:-Synthetic rubber, from 10 per cent to 8£ per cent; vinyl acetate, from 7£ per cent and 1£ cent lb. to 6J per cent and 1£ cent lb.; acetic anhydride, from 1J cent lb. to 1£ cent lb.; acetone, from 10 per cent to 8J per cent; vanillin, from 22 i per cent and 3£ cents lb. to 19 per cent and 3 cents lb.; methyl alcohol, from 18 cents gal. to 15-3 cents gal.; barytes ore, crude, from $3 ton to $2.55 ton; aluminum salts and compounds, not specially provided for (nspf), paints, chlorine and all chemical elements, salts and compounds, nspf, from 12 J per cent to 10J per cent.
Metals and metal manufactures
In this field, reductions were obtained on a number of important items: Aluminum and alloys, in crude form, from 1£ cents lb. to 1J cents lb.; in sheets, bars, and specified shapes, from 3 cents lb. to 2J cents lb.; steel ingot and billet, valued not over 5 cents per pound, from 10 per cent to 8£ per cent; wire and cable of aluminum, copper, and other base metal, from 17J per cent to 15 per cent; forgings of iron or steel, from 12£ per cent to 10£ per cent; storage batteries and parts, except alkaline type, from 20 per cent to 17 per cent; aluminum table and household ware, from 20 per cent and 4| cents lb. to 17 per cent and 3-J cents lb.; electrotype plates, from 12£ per cent to 10£ per cent; electric therapeutic apparatus, from 174 per cent to 15 per cent; electric motors, and electrical goods and devices, n.e.s. from 12J Per cent to 104 per cent; parts for automobiles, from 12£ per cent to 10J per cent; airplanes and parts, from 15 per cent to 124 per cent; pleasure boats, sail, steam or motor
GATT-Tariff Revisions propelled, under $15,000 each, from 7J per cent to 6 per cent; pulp and paper machinery, from 10 per cent to 8J per cent; mining machinery, sawmill and wood-working machinery, and all machinery, not specially provided for, from 13 J per cent to UJ per cent; articles of aluminum, and articles of iron or steel, not specially provided for, from 22£ per cent to 19 per cent. The statutory rate on copper, which is presently suspended, is reduced from 2 cents lb. to 1-7 cents lb.
Wood manufactures
In this group are concessions on: Paint brush handles, and broom and mop handles, from 10 per cent to 8£ per cent; canoes and paddles, from 10 per cent to 8£ per cent, furniture, from 12J per cent to 104 Per cent; parts of furniture, from 20 per cent to 17 per cent; doors, from 16§ per cent to 15 per cent.
Agricultural and fisheries products
Concessions were secured on the following: Edible offal, from 1£ cents lb. to 1J cents lb., (6 per cent minimum); pickled or salted salmon, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; caviar and other fish roe (except sturgeon), from 5 cents lb. to 4 cents lb.; canned herring, not in oil, from 6J per cent to 5 per cent; biscuits and baked articles, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; frozen blueberries, from 8f per cent to 74 per cent; berry jams and jellies, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; soy beans, certified seed, from 2 cents lb. to 1-7 cents lb.; sweet clover seed and bromegrass seed, from 1 cent lb. to 8/10 cent lb.; turnips from 6J cents 100 lbs. to 5 cents 100 lb.; lettuce, from 1 cent lb. to 0-85 cent lb.; cauliflower, from 12£ per cent to 11 per cent; hay, from $1.25 ton to $1.06 ton.
Papers
New concessions under this heading are: Uncoated book and printing paper, nspf, from 5 per cent and 1/5 cent lb. to 4 per cent and 0-17 cent lb.; surface coated paper, nspf, from 7£ per cent and 21 cents lb. to 6J per cent and 1J cent lb.; greaseproof and imitation parchment paper, from 74 per cent and 1£ cents lb. to 6J per cent and 1J cents lb.; hanging paper, from 5 per cent to 4 per cent; wrapping paper, sulphate, from 10 per cent to 8J per cent.
Miscellaneous
Among the concessions under this heading are the following: Asbestos brake and clutch lining, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; abrasive coated paper and cloth, from 10 per cent to 8J per cent; glove and garment leather, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; manufactures of leather, nspf, from 124 per cent to 10J
[Stage Direction]
GATT-Tariff Revisions per cent; boots and shoes, made by welt process, from 40 cents pr. to 34 cents pr.; laminated sheets of synthetic resin, from 12J per cent and 7i cents lb. to 10J per cent and 6£ cents lb.; piano parts, from 20 per cent to 17 per cent; and mud dispersant derived from coniferous bark, from 10 per cent to 8| per cent.
Europe
Canada concluded new agreements with the following European countries: Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden. Extensive tariff concessions had already been obtained from these countries in previous negotiations under the GATT. However, as a result of the latest negotiations, many further concessions of interest to Canadian exporters have been granted by these countries.
While direct negotiations between Canada and European countries were not extensive, Canada will also benefit from concessions which these countries granted to the other European countries participating at this conference including the United Kingdom, and to the United States. Moreover, Canada did not negotiate with Finland, France and Turkey, but some of the concessions which these countries negotiated with others are also of interest to Canada.
In a few cases, the concessions made in European tariffs are reductions in statutory rates of duty which have been temporarily reduced by administrative action. Such concessions ensure that the lower rates resulting from the negotiations will be the maximum applicable rates. It should also be noted that many of the concessions of interest to Canada are on products or in countries where discriminatory restrictions have been removed.
A summary of the more significant European concessions is given below.
Austria
Austria was authorized by the contracting parties to the GATT to conduct its negotiations on the basis of a new draft tariff which is awaiting approval by the Austrian government. While rates of duty previously bound under the GATT continue in force under this new tariff, increased duties are scheduled on many items which are not bound. The negotiations thus offered an opportunity for obtaining reductions from this higher level.
Canada obtained a reduction on whisky, from the draft tariff rate of 3,500 schillings per 100 kilos to a rate of 2,450 schillings per 100 kilos. This reduction brings the bound rate on Canadian whisky to the level of the rate on bourbon whisky which the United
States had negotiated with Austria in the course of GATT tariff renegotiations in 1955.
Other Austrian concessions of interest to Canada include a reduction in the duty on sheer nylon dress and lingerie fabrics from 35 per cent with a minimum of 14,000 schillings per 100 kilos to 32 per cent with a minimum of 11,000 schillings per 100 kilos; and a reduction on bookkeeping and calculating machines from 1,400 to 1,000 schillings per 100 kilos. The duty-free entry of tallow for technical purposes was bound.
Benelux
The common customs tariff of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg is not high and many leading Canadian exports to these countries are bound under the GATT either duty free or at low levels of duty. Nevertheless the negotiations provided a useful opportunity for obtaining concessions which are of interest to Canada. The three Benelux countries offer a substantially open market for Canadian goods, free from exchange and import restrictions.
The following are among the more important concessions, from the Canadian point of view. While lumber is admitted into the Benelux countries duty free on a temporary basis, the existing legal duty on larger sizes of coniferous lumber was reduced from 10 per cent to 3 per cent, which is also the rate of duty for standard sizes. The duty on a narrow range of odd sizes of coniferous lumber was reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. The legal rate of duty on canned salmon was reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent; the existing duty on wood alcohol for the production of formaldehyde was reduced from 18 per cent to 12 per cent, on spark plugs from 12 per cent to 10 per cent and on parts of calculating and bookkeeping machines from 8 per cent to 6 per cent. Reductions were also granted in the duty on frozen tongues of bovine animals and pork, kraft paper, pressure cooking stoves of copper, loud speakers and microphones for telegraphy and telephony, and on organs. The existing duties were bound against an increase on crude rapeseed oil, on salted and pickled horse meat, and on some grades of paper and paperboard.
Denmark
Concessions on most of Canadian principal exports to Denmark had been obtained at earlier GATT conferences. Duty-free entry is bound on many of these items, while the duties on some others are bound at low levels. At the present conference, the duty-free entry of flax seed was bound and the duty on spark plugs was reduced from 0-10 krone to 0-05 krone per kilo. Canadian exports of these
[Stage Direction]
products to Denmark increased considerably following removal of import restrictions last year.
Among other concessions of interest to Canada, the duty on canned peaches was reduced from 0 [DOT] 65 krone to 0 [DOT] 55 krone per kilo, and the existing duties were bound on planks and boards of Douglas fir and on radio navigation apparatus.
Finland
Canada did not negotiate directly with Finland. However, in its agreements with other countries, Finland granted some concessions which are of interest to Canada, including the elimination of the existing duty of 9 marks per kilo on mineral and vegetable blacks, a reduction in the duty on thin aluminum foil from 150 marks to 75 marks per kilo, and the binding of duty-free entry on rubber substitutes and on certain machines for the pulp and paper industry.
France
At the previous GATT conferences concessions had been negotiated by France on about two-thirds of the items in the French customs tariff. Among the products on which new concessions have been granted are the following: aluminum hydroxide bound against increase at 15 per cent ad valorem; lecithin, reduced from 20 per cent to 18 per cent; patent leather, reduced from 17 per cent to 15 per cent; and certain types of sewing machines, reduced from 12 per cent to 11 per cent ad valorem.
Germany
Germany granted concessions on a wide range of products. The concessions of primary interest to Canada include reductions in the duty on whisky, from 375 marks to 325 marks and from 575 marks to 525 marks per 100 kilos respectively depending on the size of the containers; a binding on canned salmon at 20 per cent and a reduction on canned lobster from 30 per cent to 20 per cent; an elimination of the 8 per cent duty on unbleached sulphate pulp and a reduction on bleached sulphate pulp from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; a reduction on ferro-silicon of high silicon content from 12 per cent to 11 per cent; a reduction on radio control and radio navigational aid equipment from 15 per cent to 12 per cent; and a reduction on polyvinyl chloride resins from 25 per cent to 21 per cent in three annual stages.
Duty reductions were also granted in the duties on fresh and frozen eels, kraft paper and paperboard and domestic electric washing machines. Statutory duties were reduced to the level of temporary reduced rates on small outboard motors, tires and tubes for
GATT-Tariff Revisions motor vehicles, unwrought magnesium, calculating machines, typewriters and cash registers, and on metal-working machine tools. The existing duty on polystyrene was bound.
Italy
The negotiations resulted in concessions by Italy covering approximately 20 per cent of Canadian exports to that country in 1955. A number of the products on which concessions were obtained have been freed from restrictions.
Italy eliminated the statutory duty of 8 per cent on salted cod, which has been admitted duty free on a temporary basis. Similarly, the duty free entry of chemical wood pulp was bound, from a previous statutory rate of 6 per cent. The 10 per cent duty on flax seed and the 3 per cent duty on crude cobalt were eliminated. Reductions were granted on planks and boards of Douglas fir from 10 per cent to 6 per cent, on outboard motors from 35 per cent to 27 per cent and 25 per cent respectively depending on their cylinder volume, and on forklift trucks from 35 per cent to 32 per cent.
Reductions to the level of the temporary duties were obtained on prepared moulding and drawing powders of polystyrene and of similar plastics; on spades, shovels, hoes and similar tools; on calculating machines, automatic electric toasters and on burners operated by gas. The statutory duty on canned salmon was reduced from 25 per cent to 14 per cent. In addition, reductions were granted on certain iron and steel items imported from countries not belonging to the European coal and steel community, including Canada, within an annual quota.
Norway
The duty-free entry granted by Norway on many important Canadian products was bound at earlier GATT negotiations. At this conference, Canada obtained new concessions on a number of products. Reductions in duty were obtained on nylon fishing nets, from 25 per cent ad valorem with a minimum of 10 kroner per kilo, to one-fifth of this level, 5 per cent with a minimum of 2 kroner per kilo; and on synthetic rubber, from 30 per cent to a maximum statutory rate of 10 per cent.
Reductions were also obtained in the duty on canned salmon, from 0-30 krone to 0-25 krone per kilogram, on cotton duck, unworked cellophane, canned peaches, and on certain machines for the paper-making industry. The duty-free entry of pneumatic spade hammers and rammers was bound, and the existing duties were bound against increase on red
4838	HOUSE OF
GATT-Tariff Revisions clover seed, patent leather, certain grades of upper leather and on fork-lift trucks.
Sweden
Sweden granted concessions on various items of interest to Canada, many of which have been freed from import restrictions. Duty-free entry was bound on natural aluminum oxide, which alone accounted for 15 per cent of all Canadian exports to Sweden in 1955. The duty on raw beaver skins was reduced from 15 per cent ad valorem plus 350 kronor per 100 kilos to 5 per cent ad valorem. The duty of 150 kronor per 100 kilos on raw muskrat, racoon and skunk skins was eliminated. Reductions were also made in the duties on phtalic acid and anhydride; developed motion picture film; dressed fur skins of beaver, chinchilla, mink and fox; motor vehicle tires; machine felt containing up to 20 per cent of continuous synthetic fibres; screw taps and dies; darning, sewing, and knitting machine needles; certain gasoline engines; radio receiving sets and factory trucks. Duty-free entry was bound also on planks and boards of Douglas fir and on nickel anodes. The existing 10 per cent duty was bound on certain machines for the papermaking industry and for mining. On whisky, the former bound rate of 200 kronor per 100 litres was reduced to the existing level of duty at 135 kronor per 100 litres.
Turkey
Commodities of interest to Canada on which the rates of duty will be reduced by Turkey include calculating machines and cash registers, from 15 per cent to 5 per cent; typewriters, from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; refrigerators and refrigerating equipment.; and office furniture of metal.
Latin America
Canada concluded new agreements at this conference with Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Successful negotiations had taken place with these countries at previous GATT conferences, and the new agreements are necessarily somewhat limited. It should be noted that these three Caribbean countries provide open dollar markets, without import or exchange restrictions affecting Canadian goods. Canada will also benefit from concessions granted by Chile and Peru in their negotiations with other countries.
Cuba
A number of useful concessions were obtained by Canada as a result of these negotiations. Duties on five commodities of interest to Canada will be reduced to the same level as the duties applicable to the United States under the preferential tariff treatment
[Stage Direction]
which Cuba grants to the United States of America exclusively. These reductions are on copper tubing or pipe, from 5-11 to 3-90 pesos per 100 kilogs; aluminum sheets, not corrugated, undulated or grooved, from 4-00 to 3 -25 pesos per 100 kilogs; phosphorus, from 5 to 3-5 centavos per kilog; linseed oil, from 50 to 40 centavos per 100 kilogs; and sewing machines, from 5 to 4 per cent ad valorem. Some of these reduced rates were previously in effect but were not bound under GATT. In addition to the above concessions, the most-favoured-nation rates on refrigerators and electric ventilators will be lowered correspondingly with reductions made in the preferential rates to the United States on these products.
Dominican Republic
A wide variety of commodities have been included among the consessions granted by the Dominican Republic. Among these the following are of interest to Canadian exporters: Aluminum ingots reduced from 10 to 8 pesos per 100 kilogs; typewriters, calculating machines and cash registers, from 20 to 18 per cent ad valorem; mimeographs, dictating machines, and addressographs, from 20 to 18 per cent ad valorem; electricity and water meters, bound duty-free; passenger car and bicycle tires, reduced from 25 to 22 per cent ad valorem; synthetic resin and other plastics in original solid state, from 15 to 13-5 centavos per kilog; plastic toys, bound against increase at 1-20 pesos per kilog.
Haiti
Canada will benefit from several new concessions supplementing those previously negotiated with Haiti at Annecy and Torquay. The duty on dried fish and shellfish other than codfish has been bound against increase at 0-33 gourde per kilog or, if higher, 20 per cent ad valorem. Other concessions of interest to Canada include: electric refrigerators and air conditioners reduced from 10 to 5 per cent ad valorem; typewriters, dictaphones and mimeographs, from 20 to 15 per cent ad valorem; cash registers and calculating machines from 20 to 15 per cent ad valorem; oat cereals reduced from 0-25 to 0-15 gourde per kilog or, if higher, from 20 to 15 per cent ad valorem; canned soups from 0-35 to 0-25 gourde per kilog or, if higher, from 20 to 15 per cent ad valorem.
Peru
A few concessions granted by Peru are of interest to Canada among which are the following: rubber water hose over 8 cms. in diameter bound against increase at 0 10 sol per kilog; water wheels and turbines, bound at 0-03 sol per kilog. There is also a customs

surtax in the Peruvian tariff applicable to all items which, in the case of the above products, is also bound against increase at 12J per cent ad valorem.
Chile
Negotiations concluded by Chile with other countries resulted in a number of concessions of which the following are of interest to Canada: leaf tobacco reduced from 6 to 4 gold pesos per kilog; cash registers and automatic vending apparatus reduced from 2-80 to 2-40 gold pesos per kilog; sodium phosphate bound against increase at 0-35 gold pesos per kilog; ferro-nickel and ferro-chrome alloys in bars, bound against increase at 0-15 gold pesos per kilog.
Japan
Canada did not negotiate with Japan at this conference, since negotiations between the two countries had taken place in 1955 at the time of Japanese accession to the GATT. However, Japan concluded new agreements with other countries and granted concessions on a number of items of interest to Canadian exporters.
Reductions in Japanese rates of duty of interest to Canada will apply to the following commodities; vegetable soups and juices, from 20 per cent to 17 per cent; synthetic resins of vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate series, from 30 per cent and 22! per cent to 20 per cent; antibiotics and preparations thereof, from 17! per cent to 17 per cent; containers of paper and cardboard excluding bags, from 15 per cent to 13 per cent; peaches and pears canned or bottled, from 30 per cent to 27 per cent; varnishes, from 22! per cent to 20 per cent; insulated cable and wire for electricity, from 20 per cent to 18 per cent.
Items on which the rate of duty will be bound against increase include:	whisky;
polyethylene; polystyrene; pressure gauges; internal combustion engines; paper and pulp mill machinery; cream separators; electric refrigerators.
United, Kingdom: Modifications in Preferences
Canada did not negotiate with the United Kingdom. However, a number of tariff preferences accorded by each country to the other will be modified to some extent as a result of agreements which Canada and the United Kingdom concluded with other countries. The changes are not significant in total and, in general, the cuts are not very deep. Some margins of preference will be narrowed and there are also instances of reductions in the preferential rates of duty. Changes in preferences in the Canadian tariff are indicated in a separate section.
GATT-Tariff Revisions
Modifications in the United Kingdom tariff of interest to Canada include the following: Printing paper, a reduction in the MFN rate of duty from 20 per cent to 16§ per cent, with imports from the commonwealth remaining duty free. Kraft paper and most machine-glazed papers, a reduction in the MFN rate from 16| per cent to 14 per cent, with imports from the commonwealth remaining duty free. On a range of miscellaneous machinery and parts, a reduction in the MFN rate from 20 per cent to 17! Per cent, with imports from the commonwealth remaining duty free. Motor vehicles and various classes of accessories and component parts, a reduction in the MFN rate from 33 J per cent to 30 per cent, and a reduction in the preferential rate accorded commonwealth products from 22% per cent to 20 per cent. Artificial silk yarn, a reduction in the MFN rate from 9d. plus 22J per cent ad valorem to 9d. plus 20 per cent, with imports from the commonwealth accorded, as formerly, a preferential rate of five-sixths of the MFN rate. Papermakers' felts containing artificial silk, a reduction in the MFN rate from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, and a reduction in the preferential rate accorded commonwealth products from 20% per cent to 12J per cent. Artificial silk dresses, a reduction in the duty applicable to all countries from 30 per cent to 27! per cent, the alternative specific rate of 6s.9d.lb. (chargeable when higher than the ad valorem rate) to be replaced by a rate of 9s.lb.
Tariff Concessions Granted by Canada
The tariff concessions made by Canada at the 1956 Geneva tariff conference cover 180 items or sub-items in the Canadian customs tariff. Of these, 115 are reductions in the present MFN tariff and 55 are bindings of the existing rates of duty, of which many had been lowered unilaterally by Canada since the last tariff conference. For five items Canada undertook not to raise duties above certain specified rates higher than those actually in effect, but which in all five cases are lower than the rates previously agreed to under the GATT. The remaining five items are reductions in the British preferential tariff, concurrent with reductions in the MFN tariff. Canada's concessions are shown in schedule V to the protocol of supplementary concessions. This schedule consists of part I covering the MFN tariff, and part II covering the preferential tariff. These concessions will not come into effect immediately, but will be implemented at appropriate times having regard to the implementation by other countries of their concessions to Canada. The
4840	HOUSE OF
GATT-Tariff Revisions Canadian concessions to each country will be brought into effect in one step.
Canada's total imports during the calendar year 1955 from all countries under the 115 items or sub-items on which the MFN tariff was reduced at Geneva amounted to $91,000,000. Canada's total imports during 1955 from all countries under the 60 items which were bound but not reduced amounted to $88,000,000.
Part II of schedule V contains five items, which provide for reductions in preferential rates of duty on certain goods on which the most favoured nation rate is also being reduced. During 1955 Canadian imports from British commonwealth countries of goods covered by these preferential reductions in part II were valued at $450,000.
The reductions in the most favoured nation tariff cover a wide range of products such as:-textile machinery, orange juice, lettuce, newsprint, shelled oysters, shrimps, beer, spectacle frames, cigars, sawmill machinery, adding machines, cash registers, road building machines, electrical precision apparatus (such as is used in oil refineries and chemical works), cameras, and tobacco pipes. Details regarding these and other important most favoured nation tariff reductions are given below.
The most favoured nation rates on certain types of machinery were reduced, but all were of a class or kind not made in Canada, namely, textile machinery, Item 413, from 5 per cent to free; leather working machinery, item 420, from 7) per cent to 5 per cent; certain road building machinery and earth moving machinery, item 422a, from 10 per cent to 7) per cent; specialized types of electrical precision apparatus, meters, gauges, etc., items ex. 445k and 445n, from 22) per cent and 15 per cent respectively, to 7) per cent.
The most favoured nation rate on newsprint, item ex. 197, was reduced from 22) per cent to free; ponderosa pine lumber and California sugarpine lumber, item ex. 505, from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; white oak lumber, item ex. 505, and Douglas fir lumber, Item ex. 505, from 10 per cent to 7) per cent.
The most favoured nation rate on orange iuice, item 152(b) was reduced from 10 per ;ent to 7) per cent; edible offal of beef and veal, item 7(b), from 1) cents per pound but not less than 7) per cent to 1 \ cents per pound but not less than 6 per cent; hay, item 69b, from $1.25 per ton to $1.06 per ton; white clover seed (both ladino and white Dutch), item ex. 71b, from 2 cents per pound to 1 cent per pound; bent grass seed, item
[Stage Direction]
72e, from 15 per cent to 7) per cent; the seasonal duty on lettuce was reduced from 1 cent per pound to 85 cents per pound; tomato paste, item 89 ex. (c), from 2 cents per pound to 1) cents per pound; eviscerated turkeys item ex. 9, from 12) per cent to 12) per cent but not less than 5 cents per pound and not more than 10 cents per pound; cigar tobacco unstemmed, item 142(b) ex. (i), from 15 cents per pound to 12) cents per pound, and cigar tobacco stemmed, item 142(b) ex. (ii), from 22) cents per pound to 20 cents per pound.
The most favoured nation rate on cobalt metal, item ex. 208t and ex. 711, was reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent; on copper beryllium alloys, dutiable under various items, were reduced to 7) per cent; manufacturers of lead, item 339, from 27) per cent to 25 per cent; coin locks of bronze, item 352c, from 35 per cent to 30 per cent; retarder for plaster, classified under item ex. 220a and item ex. 711, from 20 per cent to 10 per cent; rough building stone, item 305, from 12) per cent to 10 per cent.
The most favoured nation rate of fire engines, item 424, was reduced from 22) per cent to 20 per cent; fish hooks for non-commercial fishing, item ex. 440j, from 15 per cent to 10 per cent; open pleasure boats, item ex. 440a, from 25 per cent to 20 per cent; guns and rifles of a class or kind not made in Canada, item 441e, from 10 per cent to 7) per cent; cameras of a class or kind not made in Canada, item 462(ii) (a), from 17) per cent to 15 per cent; slide projectors, item 463, from 20 per cent to 15 per cent; spectacle frames, item 328, from 17) per cent to 15 per cent; cigars valued at more than $6 per pound, item ex. 143, from $1.75 per pound plus 15 per cent to $1.50 per pound plus 10 per cent; beer in casks, item 146, from 35 cents per gallon to 15 cents per gallon and beer in bottles, item 147, from 50 cents per gallon to 15 cents per gallon.
The most favoured nation rate on oysters, prepared or preserved, item 123 ex. (c) was reduced from 22) per cent to 15 per cent; oysters shelled and frozen, item ex. 133, from 17) per cent to free; shelled oysters in bulk and in cans, items 124, 125, 126 and 127, from various rates to free. Shrimps, presently dutiable at various rates, reduced to 10 per cent.
The most favoured nation rate on cash registers, item ex. 519(a)(2) was reduced from 25 per cent to 22) per cent; cash register parts, item 519b, from 15 per cent to 12)

per cent; adding machines, item 414d, from 17J per cent to 15 per cent; adding machine parts, item 414e, from 15 per cent to 12J per cent.
Since GATT negotiations relate only to the most favoured nation tariff, there was no occasion to negotiate rates of duty under the British preferential tariff. Of course some margins of preference in the Canadian tariff
GATT-Tariff Revisions as well as in the tariffs of other commonwealth countries were reduced in the course of negotiations with non-commonwealth countries. Of the items in which Canada reduced margins of preference those which covered the largest volume of trade were orange juice, electrical precision apparatus and textile machinery. The great bulk of Canadian imports of these products in 1955 were from non-commonwealth sources.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 8, 1956

THE LATE J. L. MacDOUGALL
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, shortly after we had commenced our proceedings, hon. members were deeply shocked to learn of the sudden death in this building of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, Mr. John Lome MacDougall. To indicate the respect in which we held our friend, it was unanimously agreed that the house should immediately adjourn for the remainder of the day.
Mr. MacDougall was born at Tiverton, Ontario, 57 years ago. He began his first service to Canada when he enlisted as a soldier in the first world war at the early age of 16. In taking this course, he followed the example of his four elder brothers and, like them, he returned to our shores at the end of hostilities bearing the scars of wounds inflicted during active combat.
Going to Saskatchewan after his war service, he plunged into an academic career, finished his matriculation and completed his arts degree, and then came to Toronto to study and graduate in dentistry. Unfortunately his health was so undermined by his war experiences that he was forced after three years to abandon the practice of his chosen profession.
Having moved to Vancouver, it was there in 1935 that he first stood for election to the House of Commons. Although unsuccessful in that attempt, he was elected for the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard in 1949 and was re-elected with a substantial majority in the last general election.
Mr. MacDougall was certainly among the best liked members of the House of Commons. His was one of those warm personalities that generate a friendly atmosphere wherever they may be. And yet, along with that cheerfulness, he had a very serious approach to the problems upon which we are called to express our views from day to day. He gave very careful study to the legislation before the house and stoutly defended the principles in which he believed. It was a mark of his fine character that he bore no ill feelings whatsoever against those who disagreed with him nor, I am sure, did 67509-304i
any of his fellow members ever harbour any such feelings against him.
Despite his poor health, Jack MacDougall was a frequent contributor both to the debates of this house and to the work of the committees of which he was a member. He last spoke in debate on May 15, less than three weeks ago. He had been in constant attendance since then. The Hansard for June 5 records that he participated in the various votes which took place in the early hours of yesterday morning, including the last one at about three o'clock in the morning. He died just as he was on his way to take his seat in this chamber for yesterday's sitting. His faith in Canada and his devotion to the Canadian people and Canadian interests were demonstrated up to his last breath. He will long be remembered by all of us with affection and with high regard.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that I speak for every member of this house when I express our very deep sympathy to Mrs. MacDougall in her tragic loss.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in joining with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in expressing our sympathy in the very sudden and sad loss of one who was a friend of every member of this house, I wish to concur in what has been said and also to express the feeling that those of us who did not belong to his party always had for him.
Jack MacDougall loved people. He gave friendship generously and he received it. Yesterday, on going through the building after the news had come of his very sudden death, it was noticeable that the members of the staff were all quiet and sad. Without exception they spoke of his friendliness and his interest in what they were doing.
All of us will recall the manner in which he mingled with the members of every party and, in doing so, expressed his genuine affection for those who shared with him responsibilities in this house. The House of Commons was a great part of his life. It was evident that for him what took place here was a very personal thing.
I think perhaps it was only symbolic that the end should have come as he was about to give another day's service here in this house. He had given great service to his country. He served well in the first world

The late J. L. MacDougall war as a very young man. The three occasions on which he was severely wounded undoubtedly contributed to the ill health from which he suffered but about which he never at any time complained. His courage was equally great in the years of peace that followed. There was never a suggestion from Jack MacDougall himself of the uncertainty that he knew existed about the length of this life or about the disabilities from which he constantly suffered. We all remember his genial conduct on all occasions. As the Prime Minister has said, he carried no rancour. He held strong convictions. He expressed them. He held independent views as well as views that conformed with the party to which he adhered with great loyalty and sincerity.
I can safely say that there is as great a feeling of sadness on this side of the house as on the government side. Nevertheless, we do recognize the very special sense of loss to those who have been associated with him for many years. To the Prime Minister, to the members of the government and to all of his colleagues we extend our deepest sympathy. Above all our sympathy goes to his wife. I do not think any of us will forget the tragic circumstances under which she learned of his unexpected passing. She was in the gallery, as she had been so constantly during this session. She was taking her share in what had been a great partnership over the years that he had served the public so well. I think we can only express the hope at this time that for Mrs. MacDougall there may be some very real comfort in the knowledge that all of us here are thinking of her in her sorrow at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, we were all profoundly shocked and distressed yesterday when we learned of the news of the sudden passing of our friend and colleague in this house, Jack MacDougall. We shall miss that hearty greeting he would give when you met him in the corridors in the morning or in the cafeteria or elsewhere. We shall miss that friendly way he had with him always. We can ill afford to lose, particularly at times like these, one who is universally friendly and for whom we have such a universal feeling of friendship. It brings home to us once again, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in the midst of life we are in death. Edmund Burke once said at the funeral of, I believe, a political opponent who was taken in the middle of a contest: "The worthy gentleman . . . has feelingly told us what shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue." Those matters which we felt so keenly about during


the past week, whether on one side or the other, are after all fleeting things, shadows that flit away.
Mr. MacDougall has not only left many friends but he left in this house records of his work here. I am sure that whether we agree or disagree with the projects which he took over in this house, he urged them because he thought they were in the best interests of those who worked in offices, stores or labour throughout this country. I refer, of course, to the fact that he promoted the bill which caused the celebration of Victoria day to fall on Mondays instead of other days during the week. He did so because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that this was of benefit to the people whom he served.
So, Mr. Speaker, we join, too, in the tribute that has been paid. He was a fellow citizen of mine in the city of Regina for a while when he practised his profession which, we have heard, he had to relinquish on account of his physical condition. I think few of us realized the extent of the ill health which he suffered. We join with everyone not only in this house, but I am quite sure his countless friends across the country, in mourning his loss and expressing to his widow, who has been his constant companion throughout the years, our heartfelt sympathy in her sorrow and her grief.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Social Credit group of this house and as a representative from the province of British Columbia, it is my privilege this afternoon to pay tribute to the memory of a friend whose service to his constituents, to his province and to his country has been so very suddenly brought to a close. We in this group would like to join in the expressions of sorrow and sympathy that have been voiced in this chamber this afternoon.
Several qualities were evidenced by the late member for Vancouver-Burrard for which he will be especially remembered, and some of those have been mentioned by the previous speakers. One thing that has impressed me since I came to the House of Commons and had the privilege of getting to know Mr. MacDougall was his unfailing cheerfulness and his friendliness. Perhaps because I came here rather recently and Mr. MacDougall had been here for some time I appreciated that spirit all the more. Whenever we had the opportunity of meeting, regardless of the surroundings, there was always that happy and cheerful salutation, and I am sure that I as well as all other hon. members will miss that greeting in the days that lie ahead.

I also noted the devotion which characterized the life of our departed friend. His loyalty to the responsibilities that his constituents had placed upon him has left a deep impression upon my own life. I believe as well there was a real sense of the value of the moral and spiritual resources as far as our friend was concerned. On more than one occasion I listened to him as he addressed this house and made reference to his faith in God and the things which are spiritual.
There is another thing by which I shall remember him, and that is his sense of fairness. There are always sharp differences of opinion, as is expected in political life, but his loyalty to his own party and policies did not keep him from respecting the views of those who differed with him, nor did it keep him from giving credit when he felt such credit was warranted. Therefore, for those qualities of life and character I am sure we are all going to remember Mr. Mac-Dougall.
We in this group would join in our expressions of sympathy to Mrs. MacDougall and assure her of our prayers at this time. Certainly, I am sure the prayer of us all is that God, who is the God of all comfort and grace, will be her sufficiency in this time of sorrow. We express our sympathy to his constituents in the loss of a faithful servant; we express as well our sympathy to the Prime Minister, to his colleagues and to the party of which Mr. MacDougall was a member. I am sure that today and in the future we shall all miss Jack MacDougall.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of my British Columbia colleagues and myself, add a word of tribute to the memory of the late member for Vancouver-Burrard who was taken from us so suddenly yesterday. May I also extend our very deep sympathy to his devoted wife who has given him such abiding help and encouragement and loyalty throughout the years.
As has been said here in such eloquent terms this afternoon, Dr. Jack MacDougall was greatly beloved by every member of this house. He was indeed "the happy warrior".
In spite of grievous wounds sustained in world war I, in spite of recurring illnesses which afflicted him throughout many years, and even latterly as he well knew under the very shadow of death itself, he was always active, cheerful and inspiring. I am sure that the sheer courage with which he triumphed over all the vicissitudes of life will long continue to be an inspiration to every member of this house.
The late J. L. MacDougall
He was a great Liberal and a strong party man, yet he could upon occasion be thoroughly independent, as all of us here well know. Stern characteristics of the old Scottish covenanter were always peeping through in his attitude toward men and affairs.
He served his constituency, his province and his country devotedly and well. To thousands of people in Vancouver and throughout British Columbia where he lived and worked for so many years he proved himself a true and valued friend. I do not know of anything finer that I could say of him than that.
For his good example, for his fine character, for his wit and humour, for all his lovable qualities, we shall miss him greatly here in this chamber.
As we take our leave of him may I paraphrase the immortal words of John Bunyan: "My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me, that I have fought His battles Who now will 'be my rewarder. . . and all the trumpets sounded... on the other side".


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the constituencies of Vancouver-Burrard and Vancouver-Quadra lie side by side throughout most of their length and for that reason and also because of the great friendship which had grown up between the late Dr. MacDougall and myself I should like to add just a few words today.
In his home city of Vancouver, Dr. Mac-Dougall's passing will be mourned by thousands of his fellow citizens who knew him and loved him for many reasons, perhaps most of all for the many kind deeds he had done for so many of them and also for his spirit of service and for the wonderfully cheery spirit with which he faced life in spite of severe handicaps. Those qualities, of course, have been manifested here and have endeared him to every member of the House of Commons.
I am sure I speak for every one of us when I say that a great-hearted Canadian has gone from our midst. I should like to join in extending sympathy to his wife, who has been such a wonderful life partner.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: May I be
permitted to say a word on behalf of those government supporters who constitute the rump in this House of Commons. We have known and revered Jack MacDougall as an associate since 1949 and we will long remember him. We in this part of the house in particular have appreciated the wit which he expressed on various occasions. We realize that he had a friendship with all members of this house. We realize too that every

GATT-Tariff Revisions hon. member knew Jack MacDougall. We remember his sincere friendship, rugged but faithful friendship, which he established in this house. We remember him for the fidelity which he showed in this house to his party and in connection with all matters in which he participated.
To Mrs. MacDougall, who was his constant companion, we express our sincere love and sympathy. Jack MacDougall has not died, for the qualities which he expressed so well will remain an inspiration to the hearts and minds of the members of the rump for the years to come.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, June 7. 1956
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 7th June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Ninth and tenth reports of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.- Mr. Henderson.

Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement on the tariff negotiations which have recently been successfully completed in Geneva. A detailed statement of these results was tabled in the house at eleven o'clock this morning, the time which was agreed to in advance with the other countries. For the convenience of hon. members I would suggest that that statement be printed as an appendix to Hansard.
I am happy to say that Canada has concluded new agreements at this conference with the United States and with 12 of our other trading partners in both Europe and Latin America. These agreements were signed on May 23 in Geneva on behalf of Canada by Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Canadian ambassador to NATO, who was also the chairman of the Canadian delegation. The new tariff


rates agreed to at this conference will not come into effect until the end of June at the earliest.
The new GATT agreements represent a further addition to the significant and substantial progress already achieved in previous GATT conferences in the reduction of tariff barriers throughout the world. The benefits obtained by Canada in these latest negotiations will lead to useful, practical gains for Canadian exporters of a wide range of products and in many markets. In addition to the concessions obtained directly by Canada, we will also benefit from all the concessions resulting from negotiations between the other participants, and this is one of the great advantages of a multilateral negotiation under GATT.
These new agreements will further strengthen the basis of confidence and cooperation so essential in world trade. It is appropriate at this time to reaffirm Canada's view of the usefulness of GATT as a framework for the conduct of trade and for the development of common trading policies. In this connection, the establishment of the organization for trade co-operation to administer GATT on a continuing basis would render the agreement more effective and would have a most encouraging influence on international relations.
The Canadian government has consistently supported this proposed organization and is prepared to take steps to provide for Canadian participation at the appropriate time. The United Kingdom has already indicated its acceptance, and it is our hope that all the members of GATT, and particularly the other leading trading countries whose support is essential, will similarly find it possible to join in its establishment.
The agreement concluded between Canada and the United States is one of the major agreements resulting from this conference. The concessions that could be made by the United States were limited by United States legislation to maximum tariff reductions of 15 per cent, spread over the next two years. Also, there were a number of items, particularly in the agricultural and fisheries field, on which the United States was not prepared to negotiate at this time. Within these limitations, however, we have concluded an agreement which should be most satisfactory to both countries. The fact that United States concessions would be implemented in three stages was, of course, taken fully into account by our negotiators in determining the nature of the concessions Canada could justifiably grant. Canada has obtained maximum concessions on a large number of products, including various chemicals, certain metals,

some agricultural items and a number of manufactured products and machinery. I am sure the house will welcome this agreement as a further step in our joint efforts to reduce trade barriers between Canada and the United States.
Canada has traditional and important trade relations with Europe and Latin America. It is our earnest desire and intention to continue to strengthen these close relations and to work with the countries of these areas in expanding our trade in both directions. As part of this general policy, Canada has concluded new agreements with Austria, the Benelux countries, Denmark, Western Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden. Canadian exporters will obtain useful benefits from the concessions granted by these countries, many of which have made significant progress in the removal of import restrictions. Canada has also made agreements with Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti, which are open dollar markets for Canadian goods. I am confident that these various agreements will serve to emphasize the importance of our trade with the countries of these areas and will stimulate even closer connections between us.
In multilateral negotiations which involve reductions in most-favoured-nation tariffs, it is customary for both Canada and the United Kingdom to alter certain of the tariff preferences accorded to the other. Most of the reductions in margins of preference of interest to Canadian exporters in the United Kingdom are relatively minor. There were, of course, opportunities for informal exchanges of views on matters of common interest between Canada and the United Kingdom as the negotiations progressed.
To conclude, I would stress that Canada as a major trading nation has a vital interest in the expansion of world trade in an atmosphere of confidence and co-operation between countries. By entering into these latest negotiations under the auspices of GATT, the major trading countries have given renewed evidence of their intention to pursue the constructive policies that have been developed and strengthened through common effort.
As to the concessions granted by Canada, my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will wish to make some comments.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister referred to a statement which he said should be published as an appendix to Hansard.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for that purpose?
GATT-Tariff Revisions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of detailed statement see appendix, pages 4834-41.)


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the tariff concessions made by Canada at this last tariff conference at Geneva, to which my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has referred, cover 180 items or sub-items in our customs tariff. Of these, 115 are reductions in the present most-favoured-nation rates of duty and 55 are undertakings not to raise existing rates of duty. For five items Canada undertook not to raise duties above certain specified rates higher than those actually in effect, but which in all five cases are lower than the rates previously agreed to under GATT. The remaining five items are reductions in the British preferential tariff, made unilaterally by Canada concurrent with reductions in the most-favoured-nation tariff.
Canada's concessions are set out in schedule V to the sixth protocol of supplementary concessions, and I should like to table copies of that schedule in English and French. This schedule consists of two parts, part I covering the most-favoured-nation tariff, and part II covering the British preferential tariff. The Canadian concessions will not come into effect immediately, but will be implemented at appropriate times having regard to the time at which other countries put their concessions into effect. I should make clear too that the Canadian concessions to each country will be brought into effect in one step.
Canada's total imports during the calendar year 1955 from all countries under the 115 items or sub-items on which the mostfavoured-nation tariff was reduced at Geneva amounted to $91 million. Canada's total imports during 1955 from all countries under the 60 items which were bound but not reduced amounted to $88 million.
The reductions in the most-favoured-nation tariff cover a wide range of products such as: textile machinery, orange juice, lettuce, newsprint, shelled oysters, shrimps, spectacle frames, cigars, sawmill machinery, adding machines, cash registers, road building machines, electrical precision apparatus, such as is used in oil refineries and chemical works, cameras and tobacco pipes.
Since GATT negotiations relate to the most-favoured-nation tariff there was no occasion to negotiate reductions of rates of duty under the British preferential tariff. Of course, some margins of preference in the Canadian tariff as well as in the tariffs of other commonwealth countries were reduced

House of Commons
in the course of negotiations with non-commonwealth countries. Of the items in which Canada reduced margins of preference those which covered the largest volume of trade were orange juice, electrical precision apparatus and textile machinery. The great bulk of Canadian imports of these products in 1955 were from non-commonwealth sources.
Part II of schedule V, which I am also tabling, contains five items. As I have mentioned, these provide for unilateral reductions by Canada in preferential rates of duty on certain goods on which the most-favourednation rate is also being reduced.


MR. DREW-MOTION OF NON-CONFIDENCE IN PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 6, 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.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is naturally difficult to resume the debate. I said nothing today when the heart of parliament went out to the beloved wife of the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I shall say no more than this, that his life was an example of one who carried on whatever the consequences and he would have expected this house to follow the course of his own life.
Sir, yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) suggested that this motion, having been launched during the debate on the pipe line, should now be withdrawn. I am authorized to say that, in so far as Her Majesty's loyal opposition is concerned, that view cannot be accepted. As the days go by and we look over the things that took place, the unexplained change of ruling on June 1 becomes even more unexplainable. The need for this motion has not been erased by the termination of the pipe-line debate. That debate has gone the way of history. The prerogatives of parliament are abiding and must remain unimpaired. It is interesting that on an occasion such as this we should reread the pages of history. In 1628-on March 22 of that year-the Speaker had failed to listen to the demands of the members of the House of Commons to be heard on questions of privilege. Then suddenly the atmosphere changed. The king needed supplies.

Immediately every opportunity was given for the members of the house to speak. One Sir Robert Phelips-and I have his speech here- said this:
This day's debate makes me call to mind the custom of the Romans, who had a solemn feast once a year for their slaves, at which time they had liberty without exception to speak what they would, whereby to ease their afflicted minds; which being finished, they severally returned to their former servitude.
Those were spectacular words but what he meant was this. The rights of parliament cannot be impaired for the temporary advantage of anyone, including the crown. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the members of this house cannot stand idly by when their privileges and their rights are jettisoned, if only temporarily, at the will of a determined majority. You, Mr. Speaker, have read the duties and the responsibilities of a Speaker. No one summarized them better or epitomized them to a finer extent than did Mr. Speaker Lowther who, following his termination of office, wrote a book entitled "A Speaker's Commentaries" in which he set forth in a very few lines the duties and responsibilities of the Speaker:
The Speaker must decline to submit motions which infringe the rules; he must decide whether a motion is one of privilege or not; . . .
Then a little later:
The granting or withholding of the closure is another source of considerable anxiety to the occupant of the chair. Have the opposition had a full opportunity of stating their case? Have they made the best of their opportunity? Is there anything more which could be said usefully? Has the subject received its full quota of time in view of the total amount of time available for discussion? These and similar problems present themselves to the Speaker and must be solved in his own mind before he can accept a motion that "the question be now put". It is obvious that no hard and fast rule can be laid down on these matters, and that in each case the Speaker must use his best judgment and discretion.
And finally:
. . . he-
The Speaker.
-is the guardian of the privileges of the house as well as those of its members.


Donald D. Carrick: May I ask my hon. friend
a question?


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to conduct this debate on a plane that is not controversial. If my hon. friend has observations to make, let him make them later.


Donald D. Carrick: May I-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: You, Mr. Speaker, then did lay claim to our ancient and our undoubted rights and privileges, especially that

of freedom of speech in debate. In the United Kingdom Mr. Speaker, when he achieves his high office-and I quote-
. . . rigorously cuts off his party affiliations. He declares his honourable intention of being the impartial servant of the house as a whole, and in particular that he will do his best to safeguard the rights of minorities.
A moment ago in connection with closure I mentioned that the responsibility for the putting of the closure remains with the Speaker.


Walter Edward Harris: In the United Kingdom.


John George Diefenbaker: In 1925-the responsibility is set forth fully here-the responsibility remained with the Speaker and any changes that have been made since then do not remove that essential circumstance connected with the closure. In the United Kingdom no Speaker-and I again refer to Lord Ullswater -receives notes of communication from the members of the cabinet. He does not meet or communicate with them. As an inflexible policy-and it is of the essence of free debate in order to prevent anything in the nature of chaos within the House of Commons-he rules on the basis of rules, not with a consideration of the results that might flow from the rulings which he gives.
I say to you, sir-and I do so with deep feeling-that unless we maintain respect for parliament, democracy will wither and die. Parliament's supremacy demands the maintenance not only of the forms of parliamentary government but also of its soul. Without profound respect for the Chair the house would degenerate, in the heat of debate, into chaos and worse. What happened here on Friday, June 1, has but to be read in order to indicate how far removed from what parliament has a right to expect were the occurrences on that unforgettable morning.
On May 31, in accordance with the principles that are laid down by Viscount Ullswater, Your Honour decided that a serious question of privilege had been raised. You indicated the course to be followed by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). In a more or less incomplete manner you indicated that there were portions of the alleged statements that infringed the privileges of parliament and, indeed, your rights. One had only to look at the faces of Her Majesty's executive on the night of May 31 to realize how disturbed they were. The next morning, without giving the opposition a chance to speak, you, Mr. Speaker, peremptorily reversed, without argument, the decision you had made the night before, a course that was foreign to your usual course since assuming this high and honourable office as our first commoner. The Leader of the
House of Commons
Opposition (Mr. Drew) occupies a high position under our system of government. He rose in his place. There was nothing presumptuous in his words. As reported at page 4537 of Hansard he said this:


George Alexander Drew: Are you prepared to hear any discussion on that, because-
Then we have Mr. Speaker's answer.


Mr. Speaker:: No.


George Alexander Drew: -we had proceeded with diseussion on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a matter of privilege. Whether it is privilege or not, it is my responsibility to decide.
That was a decision, sir, you had made the night before, leaving only the question of finding an opportunity when you could speak regarding these statements which made references derogatory to yourself. So it goes down the page and there is no opportunity given. The bells ring, the decision is final, irrevocable, unarguable. There cannot be any debate. Mr. Speaker says:
The bells are ringing and the members are being called in.
The Leader of the Opposition says, "Mrt Speaker", and he is met by suggestions that he be quiet, and other interruptions. Finally the appeal that you suggested is submitted to the house. Sir, time and the calm retrospect of several days cannot erase from the hearts of those the feeling that this indeed was something beyond expectation. It never occurred before. It has no precedent in British history since 1640. It is one of those things that must be retraced, otherwise the pathways of expediency on June 1 will in the future become the highways along which those who desire to circumvent parliament will be able to do so. That is the great danger of dangerous precedent. Your Honour knows that is one of the great dangers of bad decisions in courts of law. This, however, is more than a decision affecting the rights of individuals. The decision you made on June 1, sir, is one that in the years ahead will constitute an opportunity for evil men to prevent parliament from protecting its right of free speech. It will make members in this house, on whichever side they sit, tenants at the will of the government of the day.
I am going to conclude, sir. There is always an anticlimax when events such as those of yesterday take place. I say again, if what took place on June 1 is to stand, the rights of free men in parliament will be at the whim of the Speaker and our Canadian system will become, and indeed the occupant of the Chair will become, the pliant creature of a dominant majority. Majorities are no better than minorities. But, sir, minorities have it not in their power ta

House of Commons
alter the rules to meet the demands of expediency for them. Majorities dare not be permitted to have written into the Journals of the House of Commons a precedent that, for all time to come, will stand as an accusing finger to the practice of the democratic and parliamentary way of life.
Members have a right to know that the rules of the house will be observed and not be dependent upon the caprice of the majority. They have the right to know that the rules will not be reversed by the demands of expediency. They have a right to ask that the decisions of today shall not be reversed tomorrow by the presiding officer, whatever the consequences may be to the majority in this house. We have the right to demand that in the future frustrated ministers will think of the consequences to Mr. Speaker if at any time by overt demand or subtle compulsion they place him in a position where he must depart from what, on the basis of his wide experience, he had determined was the right course to follow. Sir, if the rules under which parliament operates, if the decisions of today in a deliberative, orderly assembly, are to be reversed tomorrow by the presiding officer who made an earlier decision, then we shall have chaos. If the accumulated usages and precedents of the past can be set aside when they are detrimental to the government of the day, then parliament will be placed where respect and dignity will be supplanted by disrespect and disorder.
It may be that we will have to consider a reform in the manner of the choice of Mr. Speaker in order to give him that detachment which British precedent and British ancient usages have assured for the Speaker. It will be difficult under our system to bring about anything of a similar nature to a permanent appointment such as is made in Great Britain because of the fact that there must be recognition in our country of the dual contribution of those of French and British origin. But certainly we dare not let the situation go unchallenged whereby a Speaker at any time can be permitted to be placed in a position where power and authority, whether directly or indirectly applied, can bring about such an event as happened here the other day. There is no other way in which this matter can be brought before the house except through the motion that was moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Is the Prime Minister not in a position now to give that leadership which will remove those pages, as it were, from the records of parliament? Charles I tore out two pages of the Journals. Let us not in 1956 have written into these Journals the denial of the usages of the past and the return to supreme authoritarianism

of a majority uncontrolled. This motion is designed to assure that in the future parliament will never again find itself trammelled by the desires of a powerful cabinet, thereby placing Mr. Speaker in a position undeniably difficult and destructive of that authority and prestige which, however much it had been built up, has been seriously diminished as the result of what took place.
I speak from the heart when I say this. What happened on June 1, Mr. Speaker, caused a resentment, a feeling of frustration in the hearts of hon. members, to see the usages of 300 years thrown out of the way for a pipe line. To me, parliament and the maintenance of its supremacy, its authority, its dignity, are above the fortunes of a pipe line.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is about 50 years since I first began taking part in debates. I have always entered a debate gladly, only wanting the opportunity to get at my opponent. I wish that were so today, because I rise today to take part in this debate solely from a sense of duty. When I spoke here a little over a week ago I tried to point out to this house where we were drifting. I thought there was an opportunity to stop and take a look before we took the next step. The house did not stop. We proceeded with the measure that was before us, the pipe lines bill. The pipe lines bill has now passed. It passed through this house and I understand it has been passed by the other place, and in a few moments I suppose it will get royal assent.
We passed it, but what price have we paid for it. This, sir, is a part of the price, a motion made in this House of Commons to censure the Speaker, something that never happened and I suppose was never thought of before in a Canadian parliament. That is too great a price to pay for any bill that might come before this house. What are a few paltry million dollars, in comparison with the legacy that has been left us in forcing the measure through the House of Commons?
Until the regrettable events of the past few weeks I held Your Honour in the highest esteem. I think you, sir, must have known how high my esteem was. Since you took over your office in 1953 I felt increasingly that you had most, if not all, of the attributes that go to the making of a great Speaker. I felt that you, sir, could very well be the greatest Speaker that this parliament has had since the late Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux filled the high office that you now hold. It was not my pleasure to know the late Mr. Lemieux but I did know a man who knew him very well, the first leader of this party, the late

J. S. Woodsworth, and he never tired of singing his praises as a great man, a great Speaker, whom it was an honour to know and an honour to serve under, or perhaps I should say to serve with.
Will you excuse me, sir, if I mention some of the attributes which I think you have for the position you hold, or which at least I thought you had. You have a fine presence and, if you allow me to say so, a great charm of manner. You are equally fluent in both of the official languages of this house. You have industry, perhaps at times a little too much. In any case, you had sufficient industry to familiarize yourself with the rules of this house and I am satisfied sir, that you know the rules of this house better than any Speaker that has been here in my time. That, sir, was my position until the recent debate on the pipe line legislation began, and then my hopes began to fade until the proceedings of the house last Friday morning sent them crashing at my feet.
It is because of the proceedings of the house of last Friday morning that I believe the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition last Monday has become a necessity and, because it has become a necessity, it has become my duty to support it.
Some statements that I made in the house at various times have been referred to in this debate and in the one before it, but I am afraid my statements were used to give an altogether different impression from what I intended to convey when I made them. When he spoke to the motion before us the Prime Minister referred to a statement I made in this house in discussing a matter on January 28, 1949. My remarks, quoted by the Prime Minister, may be found at page 41 of Hansard of 1949. At that time I used these words in supporting the motion that was then before the house:
Surely this is a question of orderly procedure in parliament, and whether we agree with it or not is a matter to be decided by the vote of parliament.
I certainly made that statement, and it was a proper one to make at that time; but if the Prime Minister meant when he quoted that statement that I should have supported the proceedings, if one can call them proceedings, that took place in the house last Friday, well, I am afraid he has not compared what was before the house on those two occasions.
Let me quickly point out what we were dealing with in 1949. The session opened just after the previous election and the Prime Minister moved, after giving due notice, mind you, due notice that is required by the
House of Commons
rules of this house, that after a certain date government business would take precedence over all other business.
I think the reason for the motion was that the government wanted to get on with the terms under which Newfoundland would enter confederation and everything was in order. It was so much in order, in fact, that after getting the views of the members of the house the Prime Minister himself suggested there be some changes made in the dates. Those changes were made and it was for that reason I said:
Surely this is a question of orderly procedure in parliament, and whether we agree with it or not is a matter to be decided by the vote of parliament.
These words appear at page 41 of Hansard for January 28, 1949. And then I went on to say:
I think every hon. member, I suppose at least every hon. member on this side of the house, regrets that the government has felt it necessary to postpone the debate on the speech from the throne, or rather to postpone it if it is not finished by the end of next week. That is a longer time than the government suggested at first, and that in itself is one of the hallmarks of democratic procedure. There has been a compromise between the two extremes. If the government did not get all they expected to get or wished to get in the first instance, the opposition got at least some of what it wanted.
Surely there is no comparison between that occasion and this one. I wish now to read from Hansard of June 1, 1956, from a statement made by Mr. Speaker:
Now, the house is master of its own rules and it is my right to submit a matter to the house. I intend at the moment to submit to the house that, in my view, the house should revert to the position where it was yesterday when I was brought back to the chair to receive the chairman's report at 5.15.
I deny, sir, that it is your right or the right of any Speaker to put matters before this house excepting the matters that are given to you by the house to put before the house. We cannot carry on business here if the Speaker of the house can come into the house at any time and say "I think we had better revert to some other order of business," or "I made a mistake and I think we should try to rectify that. Now let us go back to where we were yesterday or the day before yesterday or last week or the week before that." How in the world can the business of the house be carried on in that way?
And then the Speaker went on to say, as reported at page 4540 of Hansard for June 1, 1956:
I know what the hon. member says with respect to this motion is correct. I have indicated to the house I feel that the house should not suffer any prejudice for what I consider to be a serious mistake which I made yesterday. I say that the house is master of its own procedure. No one

House of Commons
should contradict that', everybody knows that that is so, and it is my right to submit a matter to the house and that is what I propose to do.
Sir, I could not disagree with you more definitely than when you make that statement. I have already said it is not your right to place matters before this house excepting such matters as are given you by the members of this house to place before it. I am afraid that is where some of our trouble stems from. For some reason or other you made the passage of business through this house your concern. I submit it is none of your concern; it is the concern of the government. Your concern is to hold the balance as between the rights of the opposition and the rights of the government as matters proceed.
May I refer for a moment to the question of closure. You know, there were some terribly amusing things said with regard to this closure-in regard to why it was brought about-at least they would have been funny if the matter were not so tragic. I think I heard the Minister of Finance, if my memory serves me right and if he contradicts me I will take it all back, say that closure was invoked when it was because I think it was the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had said the opposition was going to oppose this bill with everything it had, or some words to that effect, and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) had made a somewhat similar statement.
Well, boasting of that kind is a juvenile sort of thing and I do not hold with it; but, sir, it is not a reason for introducing closure. Closure invoked at that stage anticipated that something might happen in this house. We do not carry on the business of this house in anticipation of what may happen. We carry on the business of the house on the basis of what happens in the house. As I said the other day, that is where the initial mistake was made.
Hon. members opposite accused the opposition of criticizing the government's pipe-line bill. What in the world do you think the opposition was sent here for, to help the government? No, they were sent here to oppose and, if the opposition did not oppose, the government would also criticize them.
Let us suppose that instead of opposing the pipe-line bill the opposition had let it go through parliament without any opposition at all. What would government supporters be saying as they went around the country? Let us suppose this bill was passed unanimously-the opposition did not like it very well but then they had no alternative so they said they would let it go through. The government damns the opposition for
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
opposing it but it would also ridicule the opposition if they agreed with the government.
Now, the purpose of an opposition is to oppose. I think it was Sir Winston Churchill's father who said at one time that if the opposition ever found itself in a position where it had to approve of something that the government was doing it ought to do it with a kick rather than a pat.
There is a citation in Beauchesne's second edition-I imagine all hon. members have a copy of this book-and 1 wish hon. members opposite would read and study it. I read this citation in this house some years ago and I propose to read it again now. I am referring to citation 900 which appears at page 282. I believe it is from Hatsell's book on parliamentary procedure or something of that nature. The citation reads as follows:
So far the maxim is certainly true and founded on good sense that as it is always in the power of the majority by their numbers to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves from similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules and proceedings which have been found necessary from time to time and are become the standing orders of the house, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can alone be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
Could anything be truer than those last words I read, "large and successful majorities"? So large and so successful have the government majority been that they consider that nothing is to be allowed to stand in the way of what they want to do even if they have to tear to shreds the rules and procedures of this house in the doing.
I agree that in a certain sense parliament must always decide, but it must decide according to the rules. If the rules can be changed from day to day, from hour to hour and from week to week the minority has no protection whatsoever. If the position taken by the Speaker of this house is to prevail, it can lead to nothing else than that the majority in this house can at any time impose its will upon the house and the minority, and the opposition which was sent here by the electors of this country in the same way as the members of the government were sent may as well go home. We will have no business here, we will have no function to perform, there will be nothing for us to do. The government has taken it upon itself to rule by sheer force without regard to the rules and procedures which have come down to us through the years.
I am under no illusion as to what will happen to this motion when it comes before

the house for a vote. Undoubtedly it will be defeated, but that will not be the end of the issues which have been raised on it. I should like to say to the government that they may not always be here; the Liberal party may not always be where they are now. No matter how permanent things may look, change is the law of life.
We cannot have ministers coming into this house and introducing bills and giving notice of closure at the time of doing so. But that is the precedent which any minister can follow from now on. We have adopted that as the method to be followed in this house. From now on a minister can bring in a bill or a resolution preceding a bill and at the same time give notice of closure. Why? Because he has heard that the hon. member for-we could say any place you like-is going to oppose it, or that the opposition are going to oppose it. Because the opposition are going to do the thing they were sent here to do, the minister by closure will say that they will try to prevent them doing it. That is one of the things which will inevitably happen because of what has taken place here during the past few weeks.
As I said before, if something is not done, any Speaker at any future time can say, "I believe I made a mistake and you have to go back to where we were yesterday, or the day before, or the week before." Where will we be if we carry on business in that fashion? But that is the precedent we have made ourselves, and parliament is the creature of precedent. The decision taken today becomes a precedent for other decisions tomorrow.
I would say to the government, or whoever may be the government after the next election, or if there is not an election before the next session of parliament it should be done at the next session, that they should set up a committee on procedure to propose changes-they may not be very material ones and I do not think material ones are needed- in regard to these matters which have brought the Canadian parliament to the position it is in today, with the hope that it will never happen again. I say that that should be done at the next session of this house, if there is one before there is an election.
If there is an election before another session is called I will not be here and I may not be here at the next session even if there is no election. I would hate to see this parliament, where I have spent so many of my days, degenerate into a rabble where decisions were made where the Speaker, knowing what the decision would be, would
House of Commons
say, "Parliament will decide." That means only one thing, that the government will decide.
As I said when I rose to speak on this motion, I have never spoken with less relish when putting my views before an audience, call it that or whatever other word is suitable, but I felt that I had to make my position clear. When the motion is put I shall vote for it, not in any hope that it is going to carry or that it will do very much good. But we have to make our protest. I should like to suggest to those who will be here at the next session or to those who will be here when the next parliament assembles that they set right the wrongs which we have done to parliament during the last three weeks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence my remarks in this serious debate with a quotation from what was said by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada at the convocation ceremonies held at the University of Toronto a short while ago. The chief justice is reported to have said:
Unless we are ever vigilant of threats to our individual rights, the priceless heritage that is Canada's will be maimed and disfigured, if not destroyed.
I think remarks of that tenor have been said to graduating classes of universities down through the years until part and parcel of our heritage has been such references to the maintenance of our freedom. What is the priceless heritage about which Canadians are so concerned? It is the right of free speech, a free press, free elections, freedom of assembly, freedom to organize. These are the things that we mean and think of when we talk about our priceless heritage of freedom. Here in parliament we find that freedom is the central part of this system. As Ivor Jennings has pointed out, "so much of the history of freedom is part of the history of parliament that freedom and parliamentary government are often considered to be the same thing."
That is why we have reached the stage in our proceedings in parliament of putting forward and discussing a motion of censure, because we have felt that parliamentary government has been endangered and that in the endangering of our parliamentary government our very freedom has been endangered. The citadel of freedom has been assaulted from within right here in the House of Commons, and in the painful and tragic events of this week and on black Friday, the 1st of June, the attack from within on

House of Commons
parliament resulted in the humiliation of the Speaker and the humiliation of parliament itself.
It is one of the grave moments in Canadian history and, as with others who have spoken, it is with regret that I engage in a debate of this nature. I never expected that we would reach this stage in Canada when we would have to look closely at our parliamentary system to see whether or not it was sound. I always thought that it was so soundly based that nothing could shatter it. It has been pointed out that the origin of our troubles arose at 5.15 last Thursday. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) drew our attention to that the other day and indicated that at that moment I was the one who rose to my feet on a point of order and because of that the normal routine was upset.
May I point out very briefly that my point of order, dismissed after the interval of the supper hour by the Speaker as being academic and subsequently called an academic point by the Prime Minister, was nevertheless in my opinion then and now a matter of profound importance to the position of Speaker in this House of Commons. I seized the first opportunity I had in the course of the debate to bring to the attention of the Speaker the point of order, following the lines that he has told us are the essentials of a point of order. The Speaker's own words are that the function of a point of order is to bring to the attention of the Speaker a matter which he did not himself perceive.
I brought to the Speaker's attention a matter which he did not himself perceive at the time or had forgotten, and I thought I was performing a duty in endeavouring to replace in the Speaker's hand something that he had let slip to the chairman of the committee because I believe that here in the House of Commons it is the Speaker's interpretation of the rules that should be decisive and not the interpretation of the rules as determined by one or other of our chairmen of committees. However, it was dismissed as academic. The Prime Minister pointed out that I was persistent in asking for a vote on the Speaker's ruling. I admit I was persistent and under similar circumstances I would be persistent again because I thought I was being brushed aside. So much for that.
The date of the commencement of the disaster that befell parliament was not at 5.15 on last Thursday but on the 24th of May. It was on the 24th of May that w*e entered upon the slippery slope that led down to destruction because that was the day when, as some member of the press

gallery so aptly put it, closure by thumbscrew was applied. We had had earlier on the resolution stage the imposition of closure, which we resisted and disliked. On the second reading stage we had the imposition of closure, which we resisted. But in the committee stage when the first clause of the bill was brought before us closure by thumbscrew was applied, the right of speech was forbidden to members of parliament, and anger and dismay swept through the house.
It was on that occasion that the chairman of the committee made his ruling with regard to the interpretation of the word "consideration", a word never before interpreted by a Speaker in the House of Commons. There was no precedent for guidance. It was in consideration of these two matters that I subsequently brought to the Speaker's attention the point of order that I raised on the Thursday. But it was the imposition of closure that brought about all the sorry circumstances that succeeded.
I want to digress for a minute or two to discuss closure as it is applied in England because so many references have been made to the procedure there and the implication has been made that it is a normal course of procedure in England. That, sir, is not so. People who talk about closure being applied in England must first discuss and define such matters as the previous question, allocation of time and the guillotine before they can relate that to what happens here under our system of closure. But may I point out that on the 5th of June the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said, as found at page 4743 of Hansard:
From 1945 to 1951, which was the period when the Socialist government was in power in the United Kingdom, the maximum time actually devoted to the consideration of any government money bill by the House of Commons during that period of six years was 21 hours and 25 minutes.
I presume he means that any bill which authorizes the use of public funds is a money bill. I would hope that you would keep in your mind that period from 1945 to 1951 and the maximum time the minister gave of 21 hours and 25 minutes for a money bill. If you will bear with me, I will direct your attention to the fact that in the British House of Commons in June of 1948-1 will give references, which were not given by the minister-as found in volume 451, column 2175 to column 2658 of British Hansard, a bill was discussed there called, appropriately enough, the gas bill. It had been introduced, discussed on second reading and was in the committee stage and the report stage on the 9th of June through to the early hours of the 10th of June in a continuous sitting of parliament. They have no recess for the supper hour. For 16

hours, just in that one stage, the committee stage and the report stage, the bill was discussed. That discussion in the House of Commons had been preceded by not1 days or weeks but months of sittings in a standing committee, including in that standing committee several all-night sittings. I ask if you relate that fact to the minister's statement that the longest time ever spent on a money bill in the House of Commons was 21 hours and 25 minutes-if you can relate those two statements- and can place any credence in the suggestion that the minister's statement is accurate. I will leave it to you to make your own choice.
Let me point out this further fact. The minister might have gone a step further and looked at the transport bill in 1952, volume 508, column 47, of the British Hansard-discussed on November 24, 1952. On that occasion the British system of closure that allocates time was imposed at the commencement of the committee sittings and the guillotine as they call it was introduced. It was introduced because of their experience with that gas bill in 1948. Under that system of closure they allowed seven days on the committee stage. That was, of course, preceded by the usual introduction and second reading events. Under that system they allowed seven days in the committee for a total of 45J to 49 hours. In our committee sittings we had five days under closure by thumbscrew for a total of 25 hours and the extra three that we got on the night of the voting. I am not excluding there any time that we may have spent on other matters. That guillotine motion introduced in England at the commencement of their committee sittings on the transport bill in 1952 was debated for almost seven hours, preceded by one division and concluded by four divisions. The Times wrote an article about it which you may find in the course of the debate. Anyone who wants to discover whether or not closure is accepted as the normal practice in England might very well read that debate of 1952. He will discover that it is abhorred by the British House of Commons. He will also discover that it is not anything like the type of closure that we had here.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in his remarks said this:
That country,-
He was referring to England.
-Mr. Speaker, the home of parliamentary freedom, also understands the necessities of parliamentary government, the responsibilities and rights of the government as well as of the opposition.
Any study of the British Hansard indicates that fact. In an earlier debate I ran across the remarks of Lloyd George who, as you know, spent 50 years in the House of Commons in England. He said that there stood
House of Commons
out in his memory one event when he, along with six others, went into the opposition lobby and were outvoted by the tremendous majority of over 600 who went into the government lobby under the system that they have of voting. He said that vast majorities wither away and die. He said that he had lived to see the day when that vast majority had disappeared and he himself had come in on the government side.
Mr. Speaker, the root of the matter that we are discussing here is the independence of the Speaker. We have looked to the Speaker to be the guardian of our liberties. That volume of May that we have been discussing so frequently during the last two or three weeks is dedicated to the Speakers of the commonwealth who uphold in common the high tradition of parliament. It is that independence with which we are so much concerned. In the independence of the Speaker we believe we see the protection of the minority groups in parliament. Of course the man who set the greatest example in England was Mr. Speaker Onslow, in 1727. This shows the long tradition of the independence of the Speaker. Mr. Onslow was Speaker for 33 years. In Kenneth Mackenzie's book on "The English Parliament" you will find these words:
Onslow's show of independence at the outset of his career as Speaker did not belie his subsequent conduct. Throughout his 33 years' tenure of the Speakership he exhibited an unflinching attitude of independence towards the government, and he enforced the rules of procedure without respect of persons. 'The forms of proceedings', he held, 'as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the action of ministers, and they were in many instances a shelter and a protection to the minority against the attempts of power'. Only by strict adherence to the rules of procedure could the minority be protected from those 'irregularities and abuses which these forms are intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities'. Indeed, so great was Onslow's attachment to forms that Horace Walpole said that 'it often made him troublesome in matters of higher moment'. There could hardly be better testimony to Onslow's indifference to ministerial convenience.
That, I submit, represents the state of independence that we expect of the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons. Why are we so much interested in that matter? Because, as I said earlier, this is the citadel of our freedom. We have a long tradition handed down from our ancestors. Sir Ivor Jennings in his book "The Queen's Government" speaks about the behaviour of the ordinary Englishman. The same thing may well be said about the ordinary Canadian. Sir Ivor Jennings said this:
He is not only a free man; he is truculently free. He is, perhaps, the most law-abiding citizen in the world, particularly when the law seems to him to be sensible; but no man is more ready

House of Commons
to take offence when the law is broken. He does not obey orders because they are given by some person in authority: He obeys orders when they are lawful orders issued by a person who has legal authority to issue them. John Hampden, gentleman of Buckinghamshire, is one of our national heroes; and Hampden has written his name into history because he refused to pay a tax of 20 shillings, imposed upon him by the sheriff in accordance with orders from the king. He was charged before the Exchequer Chamber in the Great Case of Shipmoney. Seven judges found against him and five in his favour; but later parliament reversed the verdict. The important point, though, was that Hampden refused to obey an order that he thought to be unlawful and thereby helped to establish a tradition.
I think that Canadians, equally with Englishmen, are truculently free. I think that some of the exasperation shown in this house last Friday was due to that fact. No man is more ready to take offence when the law is broken. Last Thursday and Friday, and on other occasions, we thought that the law- the rules of procedure of the House of Commons-was being broken. All of this occurrence here leads, in my opinion, to the necessity for a study of the parliamentary system. I think we have been taking things too much for granted. I think that our professors of history, our writers on political science and our teachers in the schools as well as members of parliament themselves and others must examine our parliamentary system much more closely. I think we are inclined to misunderstand the various operations of it. We fail to understand sometimes the party system. I would hope that members of the government, as well as those on the opposition side, would study and reflect upon Professor Jennings' two volumes, one called "Parliament" and the other "Cabinet Government", in which he sets out the basis of our system of parliamentary government.
He says with regard to the parties that come into the house;
The House of Commons is the oratorical battleground of those parties. The one supports and the other opposes the government. The one defends a policy and the other puts forward another. Any defect of administration, any weakness of principle or defect of practice, any blunder of politics, is soon brought to light and exhibited to the world.
The functions which Bagehot described are thus exercised through the competition of government and opposition. The "mind of the people" is expressed in different ways and through different forms because it is not and cannot be a single mind. Political education is real education because at least two points of view are always being put, and the elector has to choose between them. The other side has power to speak and therefore can and must be heard. The opposition demands that policies be formulated openly and consequences of policies revealed.
Parliament compels the government to defend itself by open and rational argument; but it also compels the opposition to state what is the alternative and, if that alternative be plausible, to attempt to carry it out. The majority does not override the minority roughshod, because the

habits of centuries have created a free people, disliking oppression even of minorities. Members of parliament, to quote Milton again, know the people of England to be a free people, and themselves the representatives of that freedom.
I think the function of the opposition in parliament is misunderstood. Looking back I find that four years ago I spoke in the House of Commons, although I had not been here very long. At that time some matter came up striking at the rights of members in this house and I entered into the debate. Here is what Ivor Jennings says, in his book "Cabinet Government,,>
on the importance of the opposition :
It is not untrue to say that the most important part of parliament is the opposition in the House of Commons. The function of parliament is not to govern but to criticize. Its criticism, too, is directed not so much towards a fundamental modification of the government's policy as towards the education of public opinion. The government's majority exists to support the government. The function of the opposition is to secure a majority against the government at the next general election and thus to replace the government. This does not imply that a government may not be defeated in the House of Commons. Nor does it imply that parliamentary criticism may not persuade the government to modify, or even to withdraw, its proposals. These qualifications are important; but they do not destroy the truth of the principle that the government governs and the opposition criticises. Failure to understand this simple principle is one of the causes of the failure of so many of the progeny of the mother of parliaments and of the suppression of parliamentary government by dictatorships.
Then, as a final quotation from Ivor Jennings, I have this one:
The tradition of parliament that "His Majesty's Opposition" shall not be oppressed is not a tradition merely; it rests on policy. Given free elections, an opposition that is not allowed to oppose in parliament is by that fact supplied with arguments for opposition in the country. If it can be asserted that the government fears criticism, it can be suggested with considerable force that there is ground for criticism. The opposition is given a forum in parliament because if it were not it would be given a convincing argument in the forum of the country.
Mr. Speaker, an understanding of parliament is essential. I hope that out of this trouble that has arisen here the people of Canada will give much closer attention than they have given during the last few years to an understanding of parliament. We are suffering from the war years. This is an aftermath of the war. During the war years we granted full power to the government, and that government has been reluctant to relinquish that full power. We have fallen into a state of complacency with regard to our system of government.
I am going to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a quotation from Kenneth Mackenzie's book "The English Parliament". On the first page

there is a quotation from a broadcast delivered in February 1946 by Edward R. Murrow. This was just at the conclusion of the war. It says:
I doubt that the most important thing was Dunkirk or the Battle of Britain, El Alamein or Stalingrad. Not even the landings in Normandy or the great blows struck by British and American bombers. Historians may decide that any one of these events was decisive, but I am persuaded that the most important thing that happened in Britain was that this nation chose to win or lose this war under the established rules of parliamentary procedure. It feared Nazism, but did not choose to imitate it. The government was given dictatorial power, but it was used with restraint, and the House of Commons was ever vigilant.
I think that, sir, sums up the attitude that I have towards this great institution. During the last two or three weeks here I have wondered why so many men whom I have known in this house, men. who are so moderate in their day to day life, have become so aroused over the events that have occurred during that time. It struck me that when moderate men are aroused to such an intensity of feeling there must be something fundamentally wrong. I have seen other men less able to control their feelings quickly aroused over matters which were trifling. But when moderate men are moved to the very core of their being, then I say that forces are being unleashed in the country that are not subject to easy control. This is a serious situation in the history of our country when moderate men are moved as they were moved during the last two weeks.
We have passed through a period of Canadian history that will not be forgotten. I do not think the recent occurrences can be cured by this parliament. I think the wounds will not be healed except over a long passage of time. I think that it will take a great deal of effort to re-establish the authority of parliament as we used to understand it, and to re-establish the prestige and authority of the House of Commons. We will have great difficulty over the ensuing years in maintaining that thing that we prize so highly, our way of life.
We have been talking and fighting wars over this question of maintaining our way of life. We have said communism is wrong; nazism is wrong and Kaiser Wilhelm with his military dictatorship was wrong. We said, though we were not very eloquent about it perhaps as ordinary citizens, that we preferred the British way, the Canadian way. We were thinking surely, as young men in days gone by, of things like these which we accepted for granted, and we thought then we enjoyed in our own country freedom from any type of oppression. Nothing has shaken me more in the course of my life than the events of the last two weeks and the threat,
House of Commons
as I see it, to that freedom which has been the one thing that we have been working to preserve throughout the last two generations.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, there have been many members who, in the course of this debate, have said this is a tragedy. That is so, and in a personal way. Some French writer, whose name escapes me, said that tragedy lies not in the conflict of right with wrong but in the conflict of right with right. You, sir, believed that you were right; we believed that we were right, and that difference which divides us is not something superficial. It is a difference which digs deep into the vitals of this House of Commons.
We here are parliamentarians. That means we have concern, respect, and even veneration for this house. We have these things not only in our bones but in the marrow of our bones. I doubt whether there is any member in this house who cannot number amongst his ancestors some who died that free institutions such as this should prevail. Therefore anything which hurts them hurts these things we cherish most.
This is the focal point of our freedom. This house is the focal point of our democracy, that form of government about which it has been so often said, it is the most difficult that the wit of man has yet devised. We have been told that democracy is slow, cumbersome, lethargic, even venal and corrupt; yet what we ought never to forget is that these charges fade into nothingness beside this one fact.
Any member of this House of Commons has the right to bring to the floor of the house the plea of the humblest person in Canada for justice. There is the greatness of parliament. Anything which tarnishes that greatness hurts not only us but every individual in this country.
I say, this house is the focal point of our democracy. The Speaker, then, is the focal point of the House of Commons, and we have given him the authority, we have placed in his hands the dignity and the integrity of the House of Commons. In the past, sir, in this parliament we have been served well. I am not going to refer to the remarks which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) made about Your Honour because largely I concur in them. You had raised the prestige of the Speakership; you were our Speaker. Some of us had known you for many years and through that time we had a great liking for you, in the chair and out of it. I had hoped that perhaps even
*4804

House of Commons
on the very periphery I might have been numbered amongst your friends. I had for you, as had others, a genuine respect even when I thought you were at times wrong. And now, what has happened to make us rise in our places and disown you?
Some little time ago the Prime Minister said that what had happened had been frustrating. He used that word on several occasions in the course of his remarks, and I well believe him; but, as the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway pointed out this afternoon, it is our bounden duty, when we think the government is wrong, to frustrate it in every way possible within the rules of parliament, and we did so. But the remark of the Prime Minister was revealing in another way. He said he was frustrated. He showed by that remark, I suggest, that there was a gap in his political education; for I think [DOT]one of the best pieces of apprenticeship any man can serve before he takes his place in government is to be in the ranks of the [DOT]opposition.
I have been here for some 12 or 13 years. I have had my own ideas of the sort of legislation which ought to be on our statute books to improve the conditions of the people of this country, and for month after month and year after year I have been frustrated but always, sir, within the rules of parliament, always so that I could not say I was unjustly done by. Frustration is no excuse for what happened last week. The tragedy of it is, sir, that you are perhaps the unconscious victim of that frustration.
Some days ago, also during the course of this debate, I rose in my place because I was disturbed at what was happening. I believed there was a corrosion taking place in the foundations of the Speakership. Members of parliament on this side of the house were rising on points of order which may or may not have been legitimate. We thought they were, and I maintained then and I maintain now it was the duty of the Prime Minister or the leader of the house to combat those points of order if they thought they were wrong. Instead, we were met with silence; and you, sir, were placed in the almost intolerable position where, in our eyes, you were acting not only as counsel for the defence, but you were acting as the judge. Time and time again this happened while the government sat silent, and you were becoming more and more embroiled in what appeared almost like partisan politics. You were being used by the silence of the government, and now you are being sacrificed through the silence of the Prime Minister.
I believe, sir, that last week you made a serious mistake. You made a mistake which

is almost unforgivable because you impaired the rights of the opposition as we saw them. At best you were guilty of a lapse of judgment, and perhaps we can make the excuse for you, sir, who cannot speak, that you were under strain, under tension which at times must have been great; but a mistake was made. There was a motion in the possession of the house, and then it was removed by what I have already referred to as brute majority. The rules were changed in the middle, sir.
I believe you to have been wrong in doing that, but I believe the government were even more wrong, if they had any respect for parliament, in allowing your error to prevail. Certain members of the government must have discussed the situation on Thursday night or Friday morning. There was a way open to them-a legitimate, proper and honest way open to them-but silence was maintained and that silence was nothing but cold cruelty on the part of the Prime Minister, who in my judgment, lost in his own sense of frustration, sacrificed our Speaker in this House of Commons. Perhaps that may now be his manner of doing things, but I hope that is not so ever again in the future.
There were other things which happened, however, which make me believe this might be so. We had the situation of which you, Mr. Speaker, can know nothing because this happened in committee, where a minister of the crown moved that clause 1 be postponed-


Major James William Coldwell: Further consideration.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: 
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, every hon. member who has risen in this debate has explained how distasteful the task he has been given is to him, yet I rise because I feel it is my duty to explain my own feelings in this regard.
I regret that a motion expressing the view that the recent actions of Mr. Speaker in improperly reversing his own decision without notice, in repeatedly refusing to allow members to address the house on occasions when it was their right to do so, and in subordinating the rights of the house to the will of the government has become necessary.
Yesterday the Prime Minister endeavoured to give the impression that there were many on this side of the house who did not feel that the motion was either necessary or warranted. I wonder where the Prime Minister has been during the past two or three weeks. I wonder where he has been mentally and in spirit, because physically he has been sitting in his seat listening to the debate and he has risen in his place to lead the vote of the government perhaps 15 or 16 times in appeals from the rulings of the Chair or in votes to sustain the ruling of the chairman of committee. Surely that in itself is an indication that there are many hon. members in this chamber who have doubted the correctness of the decisions which have been given by the Chair, and that in itself is an indication that there is a widespread feeling of non-confidence in the present occupants of the chair.
This afternoon we have listened to thoughtful and eloquent speeches given by hon. members on this side of the house who have been trained in the profession of law. In precise legal language they have pointed out to this chamber where errors and mistakes
House of Commons
have been made, where the traditions of long ago have been violated. I rise merely as a lay member, as one not trained in the law. I have never taken a very keen interest in the rules of procedure of this house, but I have been hurt and wounded to the quick during the past few weeks. I feel it is incumbent upon me to express my feelings in that respect.
I appreciate deeply the ordeal to which Mr. Speaker is now being subjected. It must be extremely difficult for the Speaker or his deputy to remain in the chair and hear charges levelled against him as member after member rises in his place and states that he has lost confidence in the Speaker. It is not entirely of the Speaker's making, although I do feel he has exposed himself by his actions to grave criticism. The traditions of the office of Speaker, as has been pointed out this afternoon, are very high, and the position the Speaker holds is a great one; for he not only presides over the proceedings of this house but he must protect the liberties and rights of parliament in debate.
You, sir, sit alone in your great chair, dressed in your robes, which contribute to your authority and your dignity. But those robes are something more than decorative aids to authority. They emphasize the loneliness, which has been referred to, and the impartiality of your office. We are not draped in gowns, but you are there distinct and alone and impartial. You have no direct communication with individual members of this house.
On great national occasions we gather in public places and in churches and we sing the national anthem and other hymns and songs suitable to those particular occasions. There is one anthem which I recall, the first line of which is, "What do I owe?" It refers in a rhetorical way to the many conditions of man. The first verse commences:
What do I owe to this dear land of ours?
Then follows the answer:
All of my best, my time, my thought, my powers.
Then the next verse asks a question and gives the answer:
What do I owe to those who follow on?
To build more sure the freedoms we have won.
Surely that is the role of every member of the House of Commons, and particularly it is the role of the Speaker of this house, to build more sure the freedoms we have won so that those of future generations who may follow us will benefit, not only from our endeavours but from the endeavours of our forefathers. But those freedoms cannot be built up and made more sure without

House of Commons
constant watch. Vigilance must be there all the time. In referring to the freedoms Kipling uses these words:
All we have of freedom, all we use or know
This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.
Ancient right, unnoticed as the breath we draw.
We are so apt to take these rights and treat them as though they do not really concern us. We take them for granted, and it is only on the rare occasions when those rights are challenged that we begin to notice. Rights were won for us centuries ago at Runnymede and in Westminster Hall. Cast your mind back to the 13th century when we had Magna Carta; then the petition of rights followed, the great remonstrance and the bill of rights. Those were all great endeavours by our forefathers to try to preserve the freedoms for the generations which would come. For centuries statesmen have been building on those rights in order that we may reap the benefit.
They were hard-won rights, sometimes in long debate, sometimes under great persecution and sometimes on the battlefield. It may be said that we cannot turn back the clock, that we cannot bring King John back to life, that Charles I was beheaded and cannot come back again. But I suggest that those were not merely men, they represented a state of mind which I regret to say still exists in this world, the state of mind of absolute power, the state of mind of the dictator. Unless we watch very carefully occasions will arise when we will have to protest against the encroachment of this state of mind which was represented by the actions of those dictators of long ago.
General Eisenhower made a very remarkable speech in the Guildhall of London at the close of the last war. These were his words in part:
To preserve his freedom of worship, his equality before the law, his liberty to speak and act as he sees fit, subject only to the provision that he trespass not upon the similar rights of others.
He said that the men of London would fight for those rights. He went on to say that the men of his home town in the United States would also fight for those rights and for that freedom. We know that the men of Canada have fought for those selfsame rights.
But the events of the last few days have shown that His Honour the Speaker and his deputies have not permitted equality before this chair. They have denied the liberty of members to speak when members had a perfect right to express their points of view. There has not been equality before the law by this chair. The liberty of speech has

been curtailed. Long years ago advice was given to a young man in these words:
My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
Late Thursday evening and early Friday morning His Honour was enticed and His Honour gave consent. We will never know what sordid means were used to lure Mr. Speaker from his path of duty. The government honours its secrets and when it does to the extent that we have seen recently it becomes tyranny. On Friday last you suddenly reversed your decision and ruled a motion out of order. I shall not go into great detail about that unhappy event. I do not think it could be summed up better than in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) as found at page 4646 of Hansard of June 4:
One of the most serious aspects of this strange course was that when I-
The Leader of the Opposition.
-attempted, as did many other hon. members, to be heard in regard to this matter on a point of order the Speaker refused to hear a word from any member in regard to this completely strange device which had been employed or which was then under consideration. At the moment the Speaker called the vote without permitting any point of order to be raised or any discussion whatever on the proceedings which were taking place, at that moment confidence in the Speaker disappeared in the minds of many members of this house. Then, as though this were not enough in itself, as though this were not defilement of our rules sufficient for one day, the Speaker after the vote on that decision had been taken announced that he found he had made a mistake in the ruling he had made about 5.15 p.m. the day before and for that reason all subsequent proceedings should be declared a nullity. Mr. Speaker, there can be no precedent for any such course.
Your fault, Mr. Speaker, on that tragic day was one of weakness and lack of resolution. Far greater responsibility rests on those men who, by threats or promises, played upon your vanity and your ambitions. But the Prime Minister saw nothing wrong with this barefaced flouting of parliamentary rules and procedures. He could find no occasion when Your Honour had refused to hear any opposition member when, in the Prime Minister's opinion, he had a right to be heard. The Prime Minister could only recall that the rules of the house had been disregarded to the extent of what amounted to the prejudice of the government. Prejudice of the government! That seemed to be the all-important thing.
He refused to admit that the rules of parliament had been subordinated to the will of the government. The government supporters, according to the Prime Minister, had created no scene, made no manifestation. Only the opposition was to blame. All his geese were swans.

The Minister of Finance followed along the same line. As leader of the house he refused to accept any responsibility for what had taken place the week before. These were some of the words he used, and I quote from page 4683 of Hansard of June 4:
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.
Mark these words-
However, I hope that in expressing agreement in that sense I am not to be taken as having accepted any responsibility for it.
That from the leader of the house! No wonder Hansard records some members as saying, "Oh, oh", and an hon. member as saying, "Oh, you hypocrite". Others referred to his sanctimonious attitude. Then he went on to say:
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.
That was the man who only ten minutes before had done his best to provoke members on this side of the house and to agitate them by insulting them and using terms which no cabinet minister should stoop to use. Seven times, as recorded in the first two columns of his speech in Hansard, the Minister of Finance referred to this party in derogatory terms. "Tory party", he said, in a sneering tone; "Tory party", and he has the nerve to say that he had done nothing and none of his followers had done anything to excite the members of this party. Over 200 years ago the name "Tory" was given to the Conservatives in the United Kingdom. It was an insulting name drawn from a small band of Irish bandits. There were other names used for other parties in those days.
I have been here for some ten years. I realize that all parties have had a great history. The Conservative party has made a great contribution to the history of this country and to the history of democracy in other lands. The Liberal party has made a great contribution to the development of this country and the development of democracy in other lands. Those parties which have represented the socialist creed have made great contributions. But it ill behooves a minister of the crown to stand up and try to cast slurs upon other parties in this house. I may be wrong, but I cannot remember ever hearing any member on this side of the house
House of Commons
refer to the Liberal party by derogatory names, certainly not seven times in the first ten minutes of a speech.
That is only an indication, Mr. Speaker, of some of the things which have been going on. I said when I started that I felt I had been wounded. I have tried to analyse my thoughts during this unhappy period. My thoughts and feelings after the events of last week were very akin to my thoughts when I heard of the abdiction of Edward VIII. I remember so well that I was driving through western Ontario going to Windsor when the word came over the car radio. My friend who was driving had to stop the car because he felt so ill when the sad news was heard. A position which he had revered had been insulted. A man of whom he had thought much had been shown to be unworthy of the high office that he held.
Those were the feelings I have had during the past few weeks. The dignity of the office of Speaker of this house, an office which I was prepared to revere, had been shattered. Men I had regarded with some esteem I have now lost faith in. I do not know how you are going to restore the confidence as between government and opposition and as between members and the Chair in this parliament. This is an unhappy house. This will remain an unhappy house as long as this parliament is in existence. We can never live on the same terms of even casual friendship as we have lived in the past.
I think the Minister of Finance is bound at all times to smart under that brand which has been given him. I refer to the brand of hypocrite. He cannot remove that from the record. If he is human he will find it difficult to associate with those he may think have used that term to him, whether or not it was justified. I know I feel that it is almost impossible for me to associate on any level of friendship with some of those who have taken a leading part in this debate.
It is an unhappy situation. I am deeply sorry for Mr. Speaker and for his deputy, the chairman of committees. I believe that they have made mistakes. I think they have been put in this terrible situation by the actions of the government; and I hold as being mainly responsible for those actions, the Prime Minister and the leader of the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to engage in quite as violent language as did the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


George Randolph Pearkes: Perhaps you do not feel as keenly.


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry if I do not appear to feel as keenly as my hon. friend. I really do.

House of Commons
I shall do my best at once to apologize to him if I offended him in any manner by referring to his party as the Tory party. It may well be that with his particular knowledge of the origin of the word and his desire not to be associated with the occasion on which the words were first used, he would feel that that was not the type of name that he would like to have attributed to his party. I assure him that I was aware, as was he, of the origin of the word. I also wish to assure him that in my part of the country-as will be borne out, I am sure, by looking at Hansard the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe refers to us as Grits and we refer to them as Tories.
These old names, Mr. Speaker, have a certain affection and a certain meaning, and I thought that long ago the Conservative party had not objected to the use of the word "Tory". If they do, I immediately apologize for having perhaps lapsed into the vernacular on which I have been brought up in Ontario politics and which I am sure will long outlive both the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and myself. I think these words will be used for all time to come. But in retracting them, I do so sincerely and I shall do my best to avoid the use of the word, at least in the House of Commons, if it is the desire of his party that I should not use it.
He spoke very feelingly at one stage about some matters to which I think I ought to refer later, and I hope I shall be reminded of them.
As everyone has said, Mr. Speaker, this has been a very unusual and unprecedented motion and debate. The Prime Minister spoke at some length the day before yesterday and gave detailed reasons why Mr. Speaker was, in our opinion, entitled to and enjoyed the warmhearted support of a great many of us in this house. I doubt that I should try to add anything to what he said. But after all, in view of what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has said, I think I might possibly say a few words both with respect to the immediate problem that faced Mr. Speaker and as to some of the reasons advanced in a general sense by those who have already spoken on the other side.
May I point out that the hon. member for Nanaimo introduced a resolution with respect to privilege. May I also point out that he had raised a question of privilege on a prior occasion and that it would not be surprising that Mr. Speaker had had occasion to consider what was then before the house. May I also point out that when the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nanaimo, at the first opportunity when he inquired if there

was any point of order on this side, I raised a point of order as will be seen at page 4531 of Hansard. I raised the point of order in these words:
As I recall the situation, a short while ago Your Honour ruled that you must put the question which was submitted to you from the committee of the whole. From that ruling there was an appeal to the house and the house upheld your decision. That being the case I suggest to Your Honour that no intervening proceeding can occur, because you had in effect said that the interpretation of the rule was that you-
And I remember emphasizing those words.
-must then put the motion. If that is so, then I suggest that nothing can happen until-
At that point the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe interjected. Then Mr. Speaker rose to his feet and went on to say some words which I shall give in a moment, and I resumed my seat without having obtained from Mr. Speaker a ruling at that particular moment. But may I point out what Mr. Speaker said when he then rose to his feet. I think I can skip everything down to the final sentence at the bottom of page 4531, which begins as follows:
If hon. members care to debate this matter before I myself am heard on the subject, 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.
Let me continue further. There were some intervening interjections, and ultimately the Leader of the Opposition continued the debate. Mr. Speaker once again interjected, as will be seen on page 4532 at the top of the second column. Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar interjected; then Mr. Speaker again, and I come finally to the bottom of the second column of page 4532 where I find these words by Mr. Speaker:
This is a matter on which perhaps I might give a ruling on a future occasion, but at this moment I would ask hon. members to consider that there is a very serious matter before this house, perhaps much more serious than one foresees at this moment in the midst of other proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In all fairness, read the whole paragraph; start at the beginning. The Prime Minister did this the other day too. It is shameful.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not the slightest intention of doing anything shameful, or of misleading anyone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister did it the other day, too.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall go back to the first of the paragraph.
As regards the article by Mr. Eugene Forsey, in which he writes under the title "About Closure, the Speaker, and Rights of Parliament", there may be more paragraphs there which are incriminatory, but certainly not the whole of the article.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That makes it tremendously different.


Walter Edward Harris: X continue:
This is a matter on which perhaps I might give a ruling on a future occasion, but at this moment I would ask hon. members to consider that there is a very serious matter before this house, perhaps much more serious than one foresees at this moment in the midst of other proceedings. I repeat the suggestion I made earlier, that this matter for the moment be adjourned.
The Leader of the Opposition, however, did not adjourn the debate but continued. It will surely be obvious from this, but perhaps my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre would not even agree to this, that Mr. Speaker had something in his mind about this; that this was not the last word to be said on the subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said only that he might have to rule on how much of the article was incriminatory.


Walter Edward Harris: That may well be or it might not be. However, my hon. friends opposite are in a position to place upon these words any interpretation they desire. I point out to him, as I do to every hon. member who has spoken in this debate, that we on this side have opinions-those opinions are not well founded in the view of hon. members opposite; I recognize that-but I hope the time has not come when we are expected to accept their opinions without question.
The following day Mr. Speaker said in effect that, upon consideration, he had concluded these matters were not matters of privilege and therefore ruled the motion made by the hon. member for Nanaimo out of order. He asked if hon. members wished to appeal, and that is on page 4537 of Hansard for June 1, 1956. As almost every member who has spoken has said, the Leader of the Opposition at that point attempted to argue the merits of the decision. Mr. Speaker did not permit that but did ask him if he wished to appeal the ruling. He did, in fact, say on page 4537:
I appeal your ruling but I also suggest that you should accept this motion.
That motion, I take it, was the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo. At this point the Speaker had made a ruling and the Leader of the Opposition wished to discuss the ruling. The Speaker had not chosen to accept discussion of it but had given the opportunity, which he was bound to do, to allow an appeal from his decision. This appeal was dealt with.
While I am on the subject of appeals, Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that I interjected only a few words into the address of the hon. member for Prince Albert because I know he would not want to have the record
House of Commons
read as if he were referring to this parliament when in fact he was referring to the United Kingdom parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my hon. friend. I appreciate the interruption and I know that was the purpose.


Walter Edward Harris: It might perhaps be useful if every member who speaks after me in this debate, though I do not wish to suggest any course of action to anybody, would bear in mind the distinction between this parliament and the United Kingdom parliament. There is a real distinction. It may be that we have a better system or it may be that they have a better system. I do not think we need to debate that at this time. But let me point out that in the United Kingdom, and this is well known by all hon. members, there are no appeals from the Speaker's rulings; nor, if I remember correctly, are there any appeals from the chairman's rulings in committee.
It may be that the very fact we in this country do allow appeals, in fact we provide for them by the rules, is something which ought to be considered in this parliament. It may be that the fact there are appeals permitted by the rules inclines toward creating appeals for reasons which would not have too much weight in the long run if the appeals were not allowed.
Every member of this house has said, and we all recognize it, that when Your Honour entered into your present duties you were looked upon with the highest regard. As has been said, I think by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, if in Canada we should reach a time when the Speaker might be continued in office for longer than the period of one parliament, it might be possibly while Your Honour was in that chair because of the high regard in which Your Honour was held.
I think that was a recognition not only of the personal regard in which you were held as a result of being acquainted with Your Honour since 1945 and in some cases earlier than that, but it was a state of mind brought about by the work you had done as a delegate to the United Nations on behalf of the people of Canada and because you had served as deputy speaker throughout the period 1949 to 1953 and had given universal satisfaction. All this builds up to the fact that when you entered into your duties you were held in the highest regard.
I speak subject to correction, but I do not recall any appeal from your rulings during at least the first two sessions of this parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One.

House of Commons


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Eglinton tells me that there was one appeal prior to this session. I had forgotten it but I accept the correction. The Leader of the Opposition the other day in his quite good, historically correct and even in places moving remarks about the institution of the Speaker, did say something that I had either overlooked or had forgotten. As I recall it, he said that there had been newspaper criticism of Your Honour prior to the time we engaged in this debate. As I say, I do not recall it and he did not elaborate; however, I accept it as a fact. I would not know what newspaper criticism there had been of Your Honour prior to this debate, but if it had begun at that time it must have been as a result of appeals from your rulings in this house or of criticism of Your Honour in this house, because I doubt very much whether any newspaper editorial would undertake to criticize Your Honour if you were not being criticized in the house or by members of it. Therefore, looking back on it I have come to the conclusion, sir, that some time since this session began there have been criticisms of you or of your rulings by the opposition, because I am quite satisfied there was none on this side, and that brought about the newspaper comment.
May I point out again the very substantial difference between our parliament and that of the United Kingdom. I have heard you, sir, ask for and listen to points of order at very considerable length. I am not criticizing your conduct when I say that. I have known you, sir, to be half-way through putting a motion and then, out of courtesy, permit an interjection or allow a point of order or another comment to be made at that time by members of the opposition. I would hope that hon. members opposite, if they follow in this debate as I am sure they will, would tell me whether they would expect any such conduct from the Speaker in the United Kingdom parliament?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. There the government would defend the point of order instead of leaving it to their Speaker.


Walter Edward Harris: I shall come to that in a moment. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that some time prior to this debate there seemed to be growing up in this house a dissatisfaction with your rulings or with your conduct, I take it to be with your rulings. 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 cases.

It may well be that hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party will always support their leader if he appeals a ruling Your Honour has made. I think it is only to be expected that under these circumstances members of the Liberal party would support your ruling. It may be that members of the other parties present, not feeling particularly engaged in the matter, perhaps at times may support your ruling and at other times may not; but, as a matter of fact and without looking at the record in detail, I doubt very much whether that had occurred until recently.
I am of the opinion that the appeals which have been taken since the beginning of this session have been supported by the opposition groups, and we have upheld your rulings. Again subject to correction-I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will follow and tell me if I am wrong-I do not recall an occasion during this session when his party has not voted against the Speaker's ruling, and that before this particular debate began. I may be wrong, and if I am wrong I apologize. But, sir, so long as these appeals are allowed we shall have the appearance of a political dispute in this house about the Speaker's ruling.
If, as was the case in parliament previously, this was common practice, nobody paid a great deal of attention to it. I well recall- the hon. member for Prince Albert will recall as well-that on a great many successive Wednesdays when in those days we used to vote on motions for papers, it was almost an invariable rule that we would have divisions on motions for papers and the like. Then at a later time we would have appeals on the rulings of the Speaker as well. In those days we often used to have appeals on a decision as to whether or not a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance was in order. Eventually that passed away.
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.
This afternoon the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway suggested that we might consider-in fact he said we should consider -changing the rules of the house. I am free to

confess, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion certainly appeals to me because, as the hon. member for Prince Albert has said, in the United Kingdom they have a different method of invoking closure from what we have. He was quite right the other night when he interjected in the course of my remarks that Mr. Speaker has a discretion in the matter in the United Kingdom.
I am sorry I did not catch what he said at the time, although I read it in Hansard afterwards. Had I caught it, I would have elaborated the point. In the United Kingdom, as I said the other night, they can have quick closure; they can have closure in a matter of hours. It is true that the putting of the motion for closure depends on the discretion of the Speaker, for the reasons which have been read to us this afternoon by the hon. member for Prince Albert. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, closure does in fact occur. It must have been evident in the course of the last three weeks that our closure rule has not been effective in any sense whatever as compared with what it had been prior to this or with respect to that which obtains in the United Kingdom parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by saying, it has not been effective?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I will touch on that in a moment. My answer so far has been to a great deal that has been said because every speaker who has engaged in this debate, except perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, has been arguing about closure as if closure had [DOT] anything to do with the motion before the house, except in so far as their feelings may have been engaged because closure was going on at the time, or the government was attempting to impose closure at the time this particular motion arose. But do not let us decide on the question of the Speaker because as opposition members we happen to disagree with closure invoked by the government and for which they are prepared to accept full responsibility.
The government knows perfectly well that closure is an unusual and rarely accepted method of passing legislation in this house. This afternoon the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway may have had a valid point when he criticized us for paying any attention to threats of filibuster made by members of the two parties opposite. I hope we will not argue that again. I only say this. The government invoked the closure rule after full consideration; and because we did that I hope no hon. member opposite will feel there is any reason for voting in favour of this particular motion with respect to the Speaker.
Now, there may be other reasons and I shall come to them in a moment. The hon.
House of Commons
member for Esquimalt-Saanich spoke of those who had fought and died for this country and the freedom we enjoy. I paid particular attention, having regard to his distinguished service on behalf of this country in two world wars. I was a little disappointed, just a little, that he did not make it clear that there are a good many people on the government side who have fought for this country from time to time. I am sure it was just an accident in drafting the notes he had because he realizes as I do that we are-


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was no reference to either side.


George Randolph Pearkes: Just to keep the record
straight, I made no reference to any hon. member of parliament having served in the war. My remarks were general. I was not thinking of members of this house.


William Earl Rowe: I think the hon. member simply said that many had fought.


Walter Edward Harris: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement that he was speaking generally.
I was inclined to accept the criticism he was directing to me at that particular moment in the light of what he had said otherwise, and implying that perhaps those of us who had fought for this country were forgetting the freedom we fought for.
I accept the correction, sir, and say this. One of the things that must be decided in this debate, if it can be decided, is how this parliament can function if your decisions are to be subject to appeal. Now, if we have a situation arise in which every decision of the Speaker is to be subject to appeal quite obviously we shall not be able to legislate for those things with or without opposition which we consider should be done.
On the other hand in this country we have followed the practice, and I think it is a very excellent practice, sir, of having Speakers drawn from the two-I was going to say minority groups-which are the largest minority groups in this country; and I would not like to think we would enter upon a practice which over a number of years would not give an opportunity for service in the chair to persons like yourself who represent one of those great races. Nor would I like to think that we would enter upon a practice that would mean some other person, representing another part of this country, might not also have the honour of sitting in the chair.
We have imposed this disability, if you will, upon ourselves-and I do not call it a disability; I think it is the contrary-but one cannot compare the Speakership in Canada with that of the United Kingdom

House of Commons
unless we first make the Speaker's appointment permanent and second make his authority absolute in the sense that you do not permit appeals from his decisions.
Therefore, while I agree entirely with all the lofty sentiments my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert has expressed both in his own words and in the quotations he has read, I say that we can use those words in this country and we can mean them too, but our actions may not possibly live up to the words if we deny to the Speaker that authority and position which he enjoys in Westminster.


John George Diefenbaker: Just one word. Does the minister not agree, however, having regard to the fact that our system and the division of our population denies a permanent Speaker on the basis of one race or the other, that the one point I made was that the Speaker should be in no way subject to suggestion on the part of the government?


Walter Edward Harris: I entirely agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Speakership in this country, because of the situation which is created by a new Speaker every four or five years or whatever term parliament may run to, being in the difficult position of having to pick up the traditions and having to pick up his knowledge of the office and the manner in which to conduct it-


Edmund Davie Fulton: His difficulty arises toward the end of his term, not toward the beginning.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Kamloops I think will agree with me that if this difficulty arose prior to this particular debate it will be necessary for hon. members of his party to explain why at this particular moment we have this particular motion. Now, I accept his leader's statement to the effect that it did arise prior to this, and I submit to him-


George Alexander Drew: What is that? What did you say?


Robert Henry Winters: What did who say?


Walter Edward Harris: I said what I had said a few minutes ago, that in his introductory remarks my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition had said that criticism had arisen with respect to Mr. Speaker in the press of Canada before this debate arose.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; that is so.


Walter Edward Harris: And I went on to say-I do not know whether there was or not-I would expect that criticism could only have arisen if there was criticism here in the house.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows;
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills;
An act for the relief of Lorinc Orvos Nagy.
An act for the relief of Regis Edouard Gosselin.
An act for the relief of William Boychuck.
An act for the relief of Edna Betty Berendt Payment.
An act for the relief of Leona Jennie Xmpey Mella.
An act for the relief of Joseph Elie Felix Leduc, otherwise known as Jean Leduc.
An act for the relief of Florence Mintz Etinson.
An act for the relief of Jeanne Yvonne Gaouyat Leroy.
An act for the relief of Adrienne Rozenbaum Melzak.
An act for the relief of Joan Louise Squires Connolly.
An act for the relief of Carol May Burch Squires.
An act for the relief of Irene Raab Agoston.
An act for the relief of Joan Marshall Bougie.
An act for the relief of Heather Thornton Williamson.
An act for the relief of Helen Louise Hancox Fray.
An act for the relief of John Wallace Herbert.
An act for the relief of Angeline Sperdakos Trakas.
An act for the relief of Sheelagh Duffin Bennett.
An act for the relief of Ruth Alister Creighton Jones.
An act for the relief of Doris Lillian Doughty Dick.
An act for the relief of Joan Etta Young Campbell.
An act for the relief of Doris Evelyn Hirsch Stephen.
An act for the relief of Luvina Mallet Lambert.
An act for the relief of Lois Margaret Clouston Willar.
An act for the relief of Mona Margaret McCastlin Adams.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Joanne Campbell Mockeridge.
An act for the relief of Edna Gertrude Neil Fry.
An act for the relief of Madeleine Tremblay St. Jean.
An act for the relief of Stephen Harvan.
An act for the relief of Charles Lanny Catto.
An act for the relief of Simonne Trottier Breard.
An act for the relief of Mary Murray Snook.
An act for the relief of Ruth Katie Brigden Battersby.
An act for the relief of Marie Dicerni Arcieri.
An act for the relief of Laurence Turgeon, otherwise known as Laurent Turgeon.
An act for the relief of Barbara Allen Deslauriers.
An act for the relief of Henri Xavier Eugene Bernard.
An act for the relief of Jeanette Cowan Weinstein.

An act for the relief of Hina LeBreton Fleurent. An act for the relief of Hazel Annie Palmer Martel.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Matilda Clayton Sawyer.
An act for	the	relief	of	Leonora	CancelliDesgroseilliers. An act for	the	relief	of	Eugenia	Towstuk
Podilchuk.
An act for the relief of Rose Rother Lewartt.
An act for the relief of Marie Germaine Muguette Andree Brunet Sievert.
An act for the relief of Joan Noble Rusk.
An act for the relief of Joseph Edouard Walter Gerard LeBlanc.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeannine Eda Coderre Azaria.
An act for the relief of Mary Margaret Florence Bradley Green.
An act for the relief of Mary Wylie Johnston Haan.
An act for the relief of Christina Walsh Mc-Brearty.
An act for the relief of Marie Anne Roy Suess.
An act for the relief of Ray Israel Lieder.
An act for the relief of Lillias Cushnie Dowden Grande.
An act for the relief of Angelina Heylen Thirion.
An act for the relief of William James Munden.
An act for the relief of Robert Raymond.
An	act	for	the	relief	of Jacqueline Gagne
Brothers.
An act for the relief of Nathan Fishbine.
An act for the relief of Dorothea Atkinson Bosse.
An act for the relief of George Evangelinelis.
An	act	for	the	relief	of Tatiana Holowko
Kucznski.
An act for the relief of May McMullin Bjornson.
An act for the relief of Adrienne Cote Souliere.
An act for the relief of Imogene Eva Patricia Hayes Knox.
An act for the relief of Maria Domany Cap.
An act for the relief of Elfrieda Eggert Nowinski.
An act for the relief of Mary Valerie Dorothy Johnston Bromwich.
An act for the relief of Islay Isobel Campbell Jones.
An act for the relief of Audrey Joan Atkinson Hanson Hanson.
An act for the relief of Marie Eglantine Victoria Laurenza Gagne Holowaty.
An act for the relief of Barbara Helen Major Kaye.
An act for the relief of Hazel Me Janet Thompson Stewart.
An act for the relief of Patricia Marion Cook Townsend.
An act for the relief of Helen Joan Franks Manley Sellen.
An act for the relief of Lily Kite Herscovitch.
An act for the relief of Mary Bagdonas Roselle.
An act for the relief of Arthur Telford Bates.
An act for the relief of Marjorie Pennell Robinson.
An act for the relief of Joseph Henri Andre Lessard.
An act for the relief of Sheila Joan Mencher Morantz.
An act for the relief of Frances Marie Ware Ami.
An act for the relief of Shirley Field Schleider.
An act for the relief of Jeannine Cecile Marie Tessier Davies.
An act for the relief of Madeline Mclsaac Metayer.
An act for the relief of Gloria Ann Hazelton Stewart.
An act for the relief of Clifford Acland Barber.
67509-305£
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Hilda Louise Prewer Shaver.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Earle Bell.
An act for the relief of Leba Lee Black Lichtenstein.
An act for the relief of Helen Walker Seive-wright Edwards.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Hayes Renaud.
An act for the relief of Isabell Jones Page.
An act for the relief of Joyce Burgess Lewis Cloutier.
An act for the relief of Marie Yvonne Blais Leger.
An act for the relief of Jeanne Fleury Touchette.
An act for the relief of Doris Cammy Lapkoff.
An act for the relief of Thea Anna May Laskowski.
An act for the relief of Thelma Barton Taylor McPhee.
An act for the relief of Olga Pritula Memi.
An act for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Margaret Ritchie Campbell.
An act for the relief of Edith May Robertson Thompson.
An act for the relief of Hans Christian Anderson
An act for the relief of Raffaele Polissena.
An act for the relief of Hilda Evelyn Charlton Carlson.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Pilkington Wilson.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Nesbitt Ward Pratt.
An act for the relief of Nichita Tomescu.
An act for the relief of Lilly Katoffsky Schwartz.
An act for the relief of Rita Beryl Gwendolyn Scott Darlington.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Christie Bradley Cunniam.
An act for the relief of Samuel Marks Stirling.
An act for the relief of Violet Ethel Stanway Sharpe.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth June Robertson Fraser.
An act for the relief of Shirley Ann Joss Le Boeuf.
An act for the relief of Marguerite Catherine Evans Macfarlane.
An act for the relief of Agniete Stravinskaite Paskevicius.
An act for the relief of Joseph Marc Bernard Levesque.
An act for the relief of Kenneth Wilfred Morgan
An act for the relief of Mary Helen Norali Whelehan Gondos.
An act for the relief of Roger Paul Rene Hilaire Varnier.
An act for the relief of Sarah Abramovsky Gordon.
An act for the relief of Ruth Shirley Churchill O'Neill.
An act for the relief of Edgar Ferland Theoret.
An act for the relief of Therese Laure Turgeon Garson.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeannine Lucette Poirier Legault.
An act for the relief of Marie Rose Theresa Allain Gauvin.
An act for the relief of Marie Therese Murielle Audelin Blemur.
An act for the relief of Frantisek Horsky, otherwise known as Francis Horsky.
An act for the relief of Anne Campbell Hogwood.
An act for the relief of Maud Virginia af Ugglas Marchant.
An act for the relief of Annie Eva Lewin Sutcliffe.
An act for the relief of Vanda Vainoraite Lebedziunas.
[Stage Direction]
House of Commons
An act for the relief of Ivy Hutchcraft Fawcett.
An act for the relief of Charles Edouard Racicot.
An act for the relief of Jeanine Yvonne Pinatel Wells.
An act for the relief of Georgina Mary Elizabeth Forcade Sheehan.
An act for the relief of Bridget Ann Hamilton Limoges.
An act for the relief of Mildred Jane Clendenning Dephoure.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Marie Hartwig Bensinger.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Mary Lucretia Glassco Bishop.
An act for the relief of Marie Therese Justine Georgette Spenard Mignault.
An act for the relief of Vera Florence Gilson Shehyn.
An act respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company.
An act to incorporate the Western Gospel Mission.
An act to incorporate the Canadian Council of Churches.
An act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain wholly owned subsidiaries.
An act to amend the Trans-Canada Highway Act.
An act respecting the pension fund society of the Dominion Bank.
An act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
An act to implement an agreement between Canada and the kingdom of Denmark for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
An act to amend the Department of Transport Act.
An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act to incorporate the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada.
An act respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An act respecting Trans-Prairie Pipelines of Canada, Ltd.
An act respecting Ogdensburg bridge authority.
An act respecting the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river near the city of Trois-Rivieres.
An act to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
An act to amend the National Housing Act, 1954.
An act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Nine minutes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Where is the opposition?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich were here I would point out-and though he is not here I do it anyway-that the Ottawa Journal uses the phrase "western Tory in final criticism".


George Clyde Nowlan: Are there any connotations to
that?


Walter Edward Harris: No, none whatever.


George Clyde Nowlan: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is here now. Say it to him.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes. Just before my hon. friend came in I was referring to an Ottawa Journal headline which reads "Western Tory in final criticism". However, I accept my hon. friend's objection to that word on a permanent basis.
Mr. Speaker, when I broke off at a quarter to six I think I had come to the point where I said it would appear that any decision we have made in the past with respect to a decision by Mr. Speaker has been made largely on party lines, and that probably any decision we may make in the future will be made largely on party lines. I repeated that I thought this situation was the result of the system we had in this country, and I did not criticize that system. I did submit to hon. members that they should consider whether or not we would ever avoid the possibility of that situation so long as we allowed an appeal to the house from a decision of Mr. Speaker.
In the course of this debate it has been implied-I do not think it has been suggested directly-that it is unfortunate that Mr. Speaker's conduct should be brought into question and that the matter could only be decided in this manner, namely by a resolution with respect to his conduct. Let me point out that this form of resolution could be used-I am not suggesting it is being so used at the moment-to advance the party disputes which occur in this house.
By one of the hon. members who spoke earlier in the debate I think it was suggested that the only way to resolve this problem was to dissolve the house so that we would have a new parliament and presumably a new Speaker. But let me point out that if an opposition felt that was the way to conduct the business of the house, and if they felt that a government would be obliged to dissolve parliament because they attacked the Speaker, then I suggest to you that these attacks might possibly be more frequent than they have been.

It is true that the government at least proposes to parliament the choice of a Speaker. That is the duty of the government. In this particular case I recall that the Leader of the Opposition joined in the recommendation to parliament. It would always be the duty of a government to recommend another Speaker on another occasion, whatever the government may be.
1 know that hon. members opposite feel extremely strongly on this particular point. I know that every one of them is aware of the great responsibility that all of us bear in the consideration of the discharge of the duties of Mr. Speaker. I am ready to agree that they must have given long, careful and serious thought to the proposal before us. Even if it were moved, as I think it was, at a time when feelings were stronger than they have been at any other time while I have been in the house, the fact of the matter is that the resolution was allowed to remain on the order paper and to be moved some 48 hours or so after that.
I give my hon. friends opposite full credit for taking a serious and solemn view of the problem before they engaged upon the debate of this resolution. But for the reasons I have given, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that it would lead to only one conclusion; and I wonder whether, under our system, any other conclusion could be reached and whether or not it is desirable that we should come to that conclusion.
May I just add one word more. Both the leader of the C.C.F. party and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, in their remarks, have spoken of the friendships they have enjoyed in the house, which they do not feel could continue under present conditions. I sincerely regret that expression of opinion. I have always had a high regard for both hon. members and for every other member of the opposition. I would hope we would recognize that if this motion is disposed of by a vote, it would be, generally speaking, on party lines; that is the only way, according to our rules, in which it could be disposed of.
For that reason I would hope that after this is over, all of us could take a view which would not be the view expressed by the two hon. gentlemen but rather that now we have discussed it and hon. members have expressed themselves-and I must say with dignity on every occasion-all of us could vote and accept the result; that we could take up where we left off without these friendships having been more than temporarily involved; and that we could once again work together in the sense that a government and an opposition work together in the larger sense of being part of a parliament which is here for
House of Commons
the purpose of disposing of the business of the people of Canada, with opposition, as my hon. friend has said, and with proposal and support on this side but on the basis-which is the true basis-that all of us are sent here to discharge our duties seriously and honestly, and that all of us are trying our very best to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with mixed feelings. So far as His Honour the Speaker is concerned I approach what I have to say with a heavy heart. So far as the government's part in this whole affair is concerned, it is difficult for me to express my feelings.
With regard to Mr. Speaker-though some may wonder at this in view of what has happened in the last few days and in view of what I may say before I take my seat-I am going to say that there is no friendship with any other person in this House of Commons that I value and enjoy more than 1 do my personal friendship with Mr. Speaker. So far as I am concerned that friendship arises because of my respect for his qualities as outlined this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I suppose it is also true to say that it arises because of a common interest in parliamentary procedure. Not only have I personal respect for my friend Rene Beaudoin, but I have the highest of regard for the industry with which he has applied himself to his task as Speaker and for the tremendous knowledge he has gained of parliamentary procedure across the centuries. Despite what has happened in the last few days and despite what duty compels me to do in this debate, I hope that friendship between us will continue.
When I think of Mr. Speaker and what he has done for parliament in these last three years-up until a few days ago-I am conscious of the job he has done here on the floor of parliament. I say this to the Minister of Finance, despite the specious attempt he made to picture the opposition as having been critical of Mr. Speaker for a long time. I say that Mr. Speaker's job in this parliament has been appreciated by all of us in the opposition just as much as by those who sit to his right.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not say anything about a long time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance went to great pains to indicate that the criticism of Mr. Speaker by the opposition did not start with this pipe-line debate. He went to great pains to indicate that there had been criticism of his rulings prior to this pipe-line debate, and that that was the basis of the

House of Commons
newspaper attacks on Mr. Speaker which occurred prior to the time the pipe-line debate began.


Walter Edward Harris: I referred to the fact the Leader of the Opposition had said that. I said that I myself did not know about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to let the
record speak for itself. I paid very close attention to what the Minister of Finance said.


Jean Lesage: That is what he said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I paid very close attention to what the minister said this afternoon. I want to tell him that, subject to my not having been able to find everything on the point between the time I had supper and eight o'clock, so far as I can ascertain there were only two appeals against rulings by Mr. Speaker prior to the pipe-line debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for confirming that fact. First may I say that there were no appeals in the session of 1954. In the session of 1955, there was only one appeal. It occurred on July 5 of that year and is recorded on pages 5683, 5684 and 5685 of Hansard. The appeal was made by the Progressive Conservatives. When the vote was called naturally the Progressive Conservatives voted against Mr. Speaker's ruling but we of the C.C.F., along with the members of the Social Credit party and the members of the government, voted to sustain Mr. Speaker's ruling. Let the record speak for itself, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the pipe-line debate there were only two appeals of Speaker's rulings in this parliament. In one case we voted against the ruling and on one occasion we voted to sustain the ruling.
The other of the two to which I have referred occurred on March 23 of this year, and is recorded on page 2457 of Hansard. The occasion was a motion for the production of papers moved by my colleague the hon. member for Yorkton to which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied a treatment that was dug out of antiquity. We did not like it. We protested against it and we argued about it. At this moment I cannot recall whether we were thinking of appealing the ruling, but in the course of the argument Mr. Speaker was offended by something the hon. member for Prince Albert said and the result was that Mr. Speaker virtually challenged the hon. member for Prince Albert to appeal the ruling. The hon. member for Prince Albert did so, and that was the occasion when we voted against Mr. Speaker's ruling.

In addition to the fact that for two and a half sessions there were only two appeals, there have been quite a number of occasions when Mr. Speaker has ruled against motions or amendments moved from this side of the house. I confess that the number of rulings against motions or amendments made by members of the C.C.F. group seems to be fewer than is the case for members to my right or left, but there have been some cases affecting all three parties on this side of the house. In none of those other cases except the two to which I have referred were appeals launched. I call my colleagues around me as witnesses to this statement. There have been several occasions when one colleague or another has been dissatisfied with the ruling Mr. Speaker has made and has suggested to me that I should appeal it. I have turned around and said, "No; Mr. Speaker is being fair." There have been occasions when Mr. Speaker has ruled against the government. He ruled against the Minister of Finance in respect of the Post Office Act. So I have said to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker is being fair and if we like his rulings when he rules against the government we cannot stand up and appeal his rulings when he rules against us.


Walter Edward Harris: I think it was the Deputy Speaker who ruled against me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as we are concerned, it does not matter. The occupants of the chair are one; and whichever occupant has made a ruling we have been happy, until the start of the pipe-line debate, over the kind of impartial treatment given to this House of Commons by the occupants of the chair during this twenty-second parliament.
I confess that in the parliament from 1945 to 1949 we got into the habit of making appeals. There was no other way we could get a vote. Those who were here remember the experience. Perhaps it was because we made so many appeals from 1945 to 1949 that the habit carried over into the next parliament for a time, but we soon discovered that in Mr. Speaker Macdonald we had a presiding officer in whom we could place our confidence. In fact, I remember that once in the very early months of his Speakership he ruled against the Prime Minister, and the habit of making appeals began to disappear. The habit had virtually died out with Mr. Speaker Macdonald, and when Mr. Speaker Beaudoin came into the chair he inherited a happy relationship between the house and the Chair and he was able to develop that relationship into one of the best relationships that could ever have obtained between the Speaker and the House of Commons.

I know that I enjoyed it. I know that the friendships built up during that period are such that, so far as I am concerned, they will outlast even the experience through which we are going now. I repeat that the conduct of the Speaker up until a short while ago was something that deserves from all of us the highest commendation.
I am conscious, Mr. Speaker, not only of the tremendous job you have done here in the house. I am conscious not only of your impartiality across the years to us here in this chamber, but I also have very vivid memories of a committee over which Mr. Speaker presided for two full sessions. I refer to the committee which was set up for the purpose of revising the rules of the house, which brought in a report that was adopted last July, a report which in due course became our standing orders as they are now constituted. I say to the Minister of Finance, and he knows this, that if it had not been for the approach of Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for his impartiality; if it had not been for his determination that the rules of this parliament were to be the rules of parliament and not the rules of the majority, there would not have been a unanimous report last summer.
My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is confirming that statement. The Minister of Finance knows that after two years of battling things out in that committee, that was subsequent to earlier committees in the days of Mr. Speaker Macdonald, and Mr .Speaker Fauteux, finally the point was reached in that committee where we were at loggerheads. We could not agree. The Minister of Finance had his rule changes that he felt the committee should adopt. We had gone through them; we had argued them; we had voted and we had had amendments. We had spent all kinds of hours without reaching a report that could be unanimous at all.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Acadia, the Minister of Finance and others who were members of that committee will recall that things were getting difficult.	It looked as though the
battle was lost. It looked as though the Minister of Finance was going to get his way simply by moving that the changes the government wanted be put through, that the report be made back to the house and put through by a majority vote of the House of Commons.
What did Mr. Speaker do? The minister knows what he did. He said he would not present to the House of Commons in his name as chairman a report that was the report of
House of Commons
the majority only. There had to be compromise; there had to be a report that would represent as nearly as possible unanimity of opinion on the part of that committee, and I remember the night across the way in room 16 when Mr. Speaker almost literally took four heads and banged them together, the head of the Minister of Finance, the head of the hon. member for Kamloops, the head of the hon. member for Acadia and my head. He said, "It is time for you four fellows to get out and get together in a subcommittee and come back with a report".
The proposal of Mr. Speaker became a motion and a decision of the committee was reached late that night, at eleven o'clock or perhaps twelve o'clock, in room 16 across the way. As instructed we were up in the office of the Minister of Finance on the fourth floor at nine o'clock the next morning. We started in, and my colleagues will confirm if, and found it was tough going, particularly under those circumstances, to try to give and take, but we did it.
I was looking today at Hansard of July 1, 1955, when the report of that committee was moved in this house by the Minister of Finance and seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops. But for the fact that the hon. member for Kamloops was seen first, either one of the other two of us would have had the honour to second it. Why? Because we had reached unanimity, because we had a presiding officer in this house who sensed what parliament should be like, who insisted that the rules of parliament were the rules of parliament, not the rules of the government; and this book we have, or this book we had until a week ago, the standing orders of the House of Commons, representing the unanimous report of the committee that worked for years, is our possession in the House of Commons because of the impartiality, because of the fairness, because of the appreciation of parliamentary tradition in the heart and mind of Mr. Speaker Louis Rene Beaudoin.
I shall never forget that experience. No matter what comes out of this situation in which we are, my friendship for him, my regard for him will continue. But, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime something has happened. First may I say, indicating our continuing regard for Mr. Speaker, indicating also the attitude of this house toward Mr. Speaker's rulings, that as late as May 3 of this year when the fever of the pipe line was beginning to rise though the legislation had not yet reached us, there was a motion under standing order 26 moved by the Leader of the Opposition that had to do with a pretty contentious issue,

House of Commons
the McMahon correspondence, and some question as to whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce had been completely fair with the house.
Mr. Speaker ruled the motion of the Leader of the Opposition out of order. The Leader of the Opposition appealed the ruling. It was one of those cases where no appeal is allowed. Mr. Speaker, in his desire to be fair, was leaning over backward. If you read Hansard of that day, May 3, 1956,-most members do not have to read it; it is still fresh enough in our memories-you will see that the point was reached where it looked as though Mr. Speaker was going to allow an appeal. Who was it that came to his support; who was it that rallied Mr. Speaker to stand firm; who was it that reminded him of his previous decisions? It was my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Supported by the statement my leader gave on that occasion, Mr. Speaker rallied and refused the appeal that the Leader of the Opposition sought to make. There the matter rested. That is the kind of regard this house had for Mr. Speaker until recent days.
I come down to May 7 of this year, the day before that dramatic day when the Liberals held a caucus in the morning and the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his statement in the afternoon and filed notice before six o'clock of the resolution preceding Bill No. 298. My leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, presented a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26 to discuss the matter of an across-Canada pipe line, with the suggestion of public ownership in the motion. This was something pretty basic and pretty fundamental so far as we were concerned.
It was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. In his comments he said something which we thought indicated that he was prepared to have an appeal. My leader asked whether that was what he meant. Mr. Speaker said, "No, there is no appeal". My leader accepted it. It ended there. This was on the day before the Minister of Trade and Commerce stood in this house and told parliament what it was he was going to demand, no matter what it might do to parliament, as we have learned to our sorrow. That is the kind of Speaker we had until recent days; that is the kind of relationship we had between the Chair and the members of this house. Then came the determination of that minister who operates on the slogan, "What Lola wants, Lola gets", and there followed the days which are now part of bitter memory.
I am not going through the things that happened during the first few days of that debate when we began to feel that something had happened, something had snapped. But

that was our experience. Where was our Speaker, where was the man in whom we had learned to place such confidence? Point after point that we would raise was turned down. We fell back on our only recourse, that of making appeals. The more we felt we were being denied our rights, particularly under the threat of closure, the more it seemed as though there was nothing else for us to do but to keep on raising points of procedure, trying to establish and to protect our rights.
Finally came the day that caused all the trouble. I shall not discuss anything that happened previous to May 31 and June 1, because up to that point I think we might have survived; although, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out, he warned the house and the government a few days before that we were drifting toward a crisis.
Well, other members have recited what happened on the night of May 31 when Mr. Speaker, after having heard the point of order of my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, heard the point of privilege made by my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo, and suggested to him that he should not proceed with the point of privilege unless he was prepared to put it in the form of a motion. He did so; he followed the instructions of Mr. Speaker as to how to draft the motion. He sent the documents in question to the Clerk, as suggested by Mr. Speaker. Everything was being done just as Mr. Speaker was suggesting that it be done. The next morning, June 1, something seemed to have happened. The Winnipeg Free Press in an editorial on Monday, June 4, 1956, said this:
The circumstances may, for once, be fairly put in an analogy with a football game. Late in the third quarter, the referee makes a decision that leads on to a vital score for the visiting side. The officials of the home team are obviously much upset. The fourth quarter begins with the referee announcing that he has changed his mind, that he made a wrong decision in the third quarter, and therefore play shall now proceed from where it was before he made that decision.
How apt is that description.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I'll say.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That morning, June 1, our trusted and revered Mr. Speaker, the one in whom we had such confidence, began to break standing orders and citations right and left. I ask you first of all to note citation 216 in Beauchesne's third edition:
On resuming an adjourned debate, the member who moved its adjournment is by courtesy entitled to speak first if he rises in his place when the order is called.

I ask you to couple that with standing order 7, which the Prime Minister quoted to us the other day in another debate, which reads:
At the ordinary time of adjournment of the house, unless otherwise provided, the proceedings shall be interrupted and the business under consideration at the termination of the sitting shall stand over until the next sitting day when it will be taken up at the same stage where its progress was interrupted.
It is clearly established that on the morning of June 1 the Leader of the Opposition had the floor; he was in the middle of his speech. Interrupting him at that point was a violation of standing order 7 and a discourtesy to the Leader of the Opposition under citation 216 of Beauchesne's third edition. "But oh", says someone, "it is proper for the Speaker at that point if he feels he must do so to raise a point of order". No. In doing that Mr. Speaker violated the provisions of standing order 50, which reads:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order or authority applicable to the case.
If the motion of my friend the hon. member for Nanaimo was out of order, the time for Mr. Speaker to tell the house was before he put the question. But no; the night before he put the question as in order. Rising on a point of order discourteously in the midst of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition I say was out of order. Then Mr. Speaker refused to hear anyone on his point of order. His contention was that this motion which was in order the night before was out of order the next morning.
I shall not go into the argument as to whether any of the rest of us might also have had the right to speak to the point of order; if that were at stake I would argue that too, but I am not going to confuse it by going that far. But I do say this, that in addition to the standing orders and citations I have already given which our revered and trusted Mr. Speaker broke, he on that occasion broke standing order 34, which reads as follows:
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.
The Leader of the Opposition sat down and Mr. Speaker stated his point of order but he denied the Leader of the Opposition the right to explain after he had sat down. What a way to start a day, a day we shall never forget.
Now, of course, we have had the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance indulge 67509-306
House of Commons
in what I can only call distortion, because they have tried to contend that Mr. Speaker forecast the night before the ruling against the motion which he made the morning of June 1. I apologize to the house for the anger with which I interrupted the Minister of Finance this afternoon, but I confess that is how I felt. Perhaps I should not have made the apology.
The Minister of Finance this afternoon endeavoured to create the impression that the ruling Mr. Speaker gave on the morning of June 1 was not something new but something forecast by what was said the night before. The minister tried to create that impression in two ways. On the one hand he drew attention to his own intervention in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, recorded at page 4531 of Hansard, when he suggested that no motion of any kind should have been entertained by the Speaker at that time.
Mr. Speaker did not rule the motion out of order the next morning on that ground; not at all. I say it is unfair, it is misleading the house and it is a case of distortion for the Minister of Finance to try to say that his intervention here in the house the night before was the basis upon which Mr. Speaker made his ruling the next morning. Then in an attempt to create the impression that some doubt had been cast the night before on the validity of my hon. friend's motion, the Minister of Finance read this, quoting from Mr. Speaker's words as recorded at page 4532 of Hansard:
This is a matter on which perhaps I might give a ruling on a future occasion-
It was at that point I burst in saying that it was shameful for the Minister of Finance to mislead the house in that way, trying to suggest that Mr. Speaker the night before had said to the house that he might have to rule the next day on the whole motion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member did not read the other quotation. I am referring to what Mr. Speaker said at the bottom of page 4531. Perhaps the hon. member would not mind reading that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to be unfair. Where is it I am skipping?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you will look at the bottom of page 4531, the second last line, and read from there on for three or four lines on the next page.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend is drawing my attention to the fact that Mr. Speaker said the night before that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman read it?

House of Commons


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely. It reads:
If hon. members care to debate this matter before I myself am heard on the subject, 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.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly. That is surely the whole point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is on my side of the argument. That proves Mr. Speaker had no notion prior to ten o'clock Thursday night of ruling this motion out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if you will also read the other quotation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You are getting in deeper; you had better keep quiet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member wants to be fair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is exactly the case, and my point is that the Minister of Finance was grossly unfair, because as I pointed out he had not read the-


Donald D. Carrick: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it is short; I am watching my time.


Donald D. Carrick: It is very short and it is this. Would you mind reading to the house the point in the second last paragraph on page 4531 where the Speaker said it seemed to him the thing to do was to postpone consideration of this motion. Does that not indicate he did not find a question of privilege existed and he wanted to postpone it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a fair enough question. All these points, Mr. Speaker, indicate that the Speaker was not sure when was the best time to debate it, that he was not sure how much of the two articles should be regarded as incriminatory. But there was no question about the validity of the motion, no question but that the motion itself was proper. I thank my hon. friend, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and the hon. member for Trinity for helping me out on this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman just let me put one other question? He says that there was no question raised about the validity of the motion. There was a question raised, which I think he will admit, by the leader of the house, the Minister of Finance, which is reported on page 4531 of Hansard of May 31. The point raised, as the hon. gentleman knows, was a completely valid point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether or not the point raised by the Minister of Finance was valid, and I concede that it might well be a valid one, that is not the point on which the Speaker ruled the motion out of order the next morning. The minister knows that just as well as I do. Just before I get too far away from this point, may I indicate what Mr. Speaker said, as reported at the bottom of the second column on page 4532:
As regards the article by Mr. Eugene Forsey, in which he writes under the title "About Closure, the Speaker, and Rights of Parliament", there may be more paragraphs there which are incriminatory, but certainly not the whole of the article. This is a matter on which I might perhaps give a ruling on a future occasion.
That followed the paragraph in which Mr. Speaker had singled out sentences in the other letter which in his view were incriminatory.


An hon. Member:: Three words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is not that what he based his ruling on?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. The next morning Mr. Speaker ruled that the whole motion was out of order. He did not at that time, as the Minister of Finance implied, contend that the point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg South Centre should not have been raised. On the other point, there was no suggestion by Mr. Speaker or no suggestion by anybody that the motion itself was out of order.
This is what represents the real problem, because next morning we had a complete turnabout. There was an attempt by the Prime Minister like that of the Minister of Finance. I mention the Prime Minister because he did the same thing as the Minister of Finance when he spoke on Monday, June 4, where he is reported at page 4655 of Hansard as follows:
You had already made it quite clear that you felt you might have to make a ruling upon the question at some time. On the following morning, when the matter was called, you did give the ruling that was cited in the Votes and Proceedings of June 1 by the Leader of the Opposition.
I say that is misleading. Mr. Speaker gave no indication the night before that he was going to make a ruling on the motion as a whole; the only indications he gave the night before were that he might have to rule on how much of the letters was incriminatory, plus the indication that he himself might wish to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman is putting an interpretation on words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the only interpretation possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We simply do not agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friends opposite are doing their best to create the impression that Mr. Speaker came independently to the decision that he announced to the house on the morning of June 1, and we do not agree.


George James McIlraith: Do you suggest anything different?


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a known fact that the Minister of Finance went to Mr. Speaker's office after ten o'clock Thursday night.


George James McIlraith: It is a known fact that the hon. member for Kamloops went from his place up to the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I certainly did not go that night. On a question of privilege, in case that appears in Hansard, I most certainly deny that, because I did not go to the Speaker's chair that night.


George James McIlraith: I am not suggesting there was any impropriety in it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are stating what you know to be incorrect, just as you have on other occasions. I submit the hon. member should withdraw those words because he knows them to be incorrect.


George James McIlraith: I believe them to be the fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On this point I think I might read another sentence from the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, as follows:
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 overnight, so greatly to the government's advantage, the Speaker becomes exposed to opposition suspicion of having yielded to government pressure.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Innuendo.


William Earl Rowe: That is not innuendo, that is a fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are certain facts which are known to the minister of external affairs and he cannot set those facts aside even if he were to act in the manner the Minister of Finance did here this afternoon. I move on. That action was not the action of the Mr. Speaker whom I have known for the past seven years.
In addition we have this business of submitting a proposition to the house by Mr. Speaker for a majority decision. That has been discussed at great length, so I need not argue about it in theoretical or abstract terms. I am going to read some standing orders to show just how wrong this was. Standing order 41 reads:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or
House of Commons
address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house. Such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m., and be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day.
That is a standing order which requires notices for certain kinds of motions and it permits certain exceptions, but what the Speaker put to the house was not one of those exceptions. What the Speaker put to the house might be regarded as coming under standing order 42, which reads:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the house without notice having been given under standing order 41.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I waited until the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had finished his speech because in accordance with certain recent directions I felt that was the proper way to do it. I ask you to direct that certain words of the hon. member for Ottawa West be stricken from the record, because they are not in accordance with the facts. If they are allowed to remain there they may create a wrong impression.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was referring to the fact that it was within the knowledge of members that the Minister of Finance had been to see the Speaker on Thursday night, the hon. member for Ottawa West put on the record words to the effect that I had been to see the Speaker.


George James McIlraith: That you had gone up to the chair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that is not correct. During that period when feelings were so tense I made it a point not to go to the chairman or the Speaker for the very reason that I did not feel it was correct for hon. members, and particularly for ministers, to be doing that at such a time. If I am going to criticize ministers for doing it I am not going to do it myself. I did not go to the chair or the Speaker during that period; therefore I wish to have those words removed from the record because they were put on there by the hon. member for Ottawa West to create an impression which the hon. member knows to be false.


George James McIlraith: If the hon. member states that what I said is not in accordance with the facts and that he did not go to the

House of Commons
Speaker, then of course I completely accept his explanation and am prepared to withdraw my remarks. As to the latter part of the hon. member's remarks, of course hon. members well realize their propriety. That is another matter, but I shall withdraw my remarks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am grateful for the hon. member saying that he will withdraw; therefore if there was any impropriety in my other remarks I withdraw them outright. But I would ask that the remarks of the hon. member at that point be stricken from the record because if they were left there they would leave a false impression.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recall another occasion when there was difficulty about striking matters from the record. I do not feel that it is within my power to order this whole matter stricken from the record. The hon. member has raised his question of privilege and the hon. member for Ottawa West has withdrawn. In turn, the hon. member for Kamloops withdraws on his part, and I think the incident should be considered at an end. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, as every other speaker who has taken part in this debate has said, it is an unpleasant experience which we are undergoing. It certainly is one in which no one participates with any degree of pleasure or satisfaction because I can say, as was said by the last speaker and by every other hon. gentleman, I think, who has taken part in this debate, that I have had the highest regard for Mr. Speaker and the other occupants of the chair coming under that title, and also a personal regard and a warm friendship as well. Therefore it is particularly unfortunate that we are faced, as we believe, with the necessity and the responsibility for proceeding with this matter at this time.
It perhaps would be a relatively easy thing to sit in one's seat and not take part in the debate, but because I feel strongly on this matter, because I feel that hon. members have a duty which has to be performed in this connection, I do not think any one of us should remain seated and hide behind someone else who is undertaking this responsibility and performing this task at this time. So, much as I regret it personally, I feel that I have a responsibility here as a member of parliament, as a member of the opposition, and I am exercising it tonight, though I certainly agree with many of the things which have been said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

about His Honour the Speaker, and the personal relationships which have existed heretofore between us.
There is another reason why I rise to take part in this debate. I must say that I was somewhat shocked by the statement of the Prime Minister when he spoke in connection with this motion on Monday, June 4. The right hon. gentleman, after referring to the motion and quoting from an editorial, went on to say this about our action, as found at page 4654 of Hansard:
Not because of the qualities of the Speaker or the chairman but because of the fact that there is a contentious measure that is being opposed by all means that can be devised under the rules of the house to bring about delay and to waste time.
Again on page 4657 the Prime Minister said in a tone, I say with respect, of deepest sarcasm:
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 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.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that I for one resent the imputations which are contained in these two statements of the Prime Minister, and I regret that the Prime Minister has shown so little appreciation of the sense of this house and the sincerity of the feelings which have been aroused by the matters which have gone on during the past week that he would suggest that we would move this motion simply for the purpose of bringing about delay. All the irritations, all the frustrations which have occurred during the preceding weeks undoubtedly contributed to an unhealthy atmosphere, undoubtedly caused irritations on our side of the house as well, but those irritations in themselves would never have prompted this motion had it not been for the matters to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred a few minutes ago.
It was when we finally came to what I am afraid will go down in parliamentary history as black Friday that we were confronted with a situation where we felt that there was nothing else that could be done. When you see, Mr. Speaker, as you and others undoubtedly did, and as hon. members have indicated, reasonable men, experienced parliamentarians, some of whom have been here for almost a quarter of a century, so angered, so aroused that they had to use means which had never been used before in the Canadian parliament, you can judge to some extent of the intensity of the feelings of the members and the sincerity of the

feelings of the members of the opposition and of the Leader of the Opposition when he gave notice of this motion.
To suggest that we would impute, charge and indict an officer for whom so many have had the warmest personal feelings, one who personified within himself all the respect which is due the Chair; to suggest we would do that for partisan purposes is an implication which I resent, and that is one reason I am speaking on this motion tonight. Certainly, sir, if notice of this motion had been given for any of these purposes or there had been any suggestion of them I certainly would not be speaking at this time.
Then there is another reason why we are perhaps all the more interested in this now than we would have been heretofore. That is because of some of the academic discussions which have also arisen, and the suggestions as to the rights of the majority and of the minorities. No one questions the fact that a majority represented by the government has the responsibility for initiating legislation and seeing that it is properly debated in parliament, because parliament is the forum wherein that debate takes place, where public opinion is formulated, crystallized and so on and so forth.
But although one can appreciate the general philosophy, the general principle, that a majority cannot be continually obstructed or blocked by a minority, that proposition made in general certainly has no application whatsoever in the situation which developed here. If one wants authority for that one could refer, for instance, to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press which deals with this question of discussion of the rights of a majority and the rights of a minority. This is what the Winnipeg Free Press says:
The government has struggled for years with the pipe line problem.	Mr. Howe has made
decisions, found that they did not work, and made new decisions .	. . Eventually out of all
this confusion, there comes a bill. And Mr. Howe says, in effect: "Right, we've decided what's best for the country; time is short; whisk it through."
There is here something dangerously near the idea that the government's thinking is enough, and that parliament's argument in public, as the focus for popular thought and discussion, does not matter.
If one wants a further illustration of the working of democracy and the function of debate, I would recommend that the Secretary of State for External Affairs see that his book is properly distributed to the members on his own side of the house. One could take his book, "Democracy in World Politics" and occupy a lot of time tonight putting most interesting quotations on the record as to the functions of debate in parliament, the rights of an opposition to debate; how it
House of Commons
eliminates the dark corners, helps to crystallize public opinion and even reaches over the shoulders of a majority. I see the minister has the book in his hand. I am sure he would be glad to have many copies of it sold, and I hope that tonight he will perhaps reread it and then read the speech he made the other night and try to reconcile what he said in the book with what he said in the House of Commons as to the functions of an opposition and a majority in this parliament.
Dealing with this matter, I should like to call the attention of that distinguished former president of the Canadian Bar Association, the Prime Minister, to a statement of principle laid down by the Canadian Bar Association a few years ago, when they said:
Under democratic institutions, the people accept to be governed by majority decisions, but on condition that the laws should be discussed in the open, traversed by the criticisms of the opposition and be the result of a free and enlightened decision of parliament.
I wonder how much discussion there is when the motion is that further consideration be postponed? How much discussion is there when the Leader of the Opposition, rising time after time to speak on a matter, is refused recognition by the occupant of the chair at that time, in violation of all the ancient usages and principles of this house and of other parliamentary houses?
Never before was such a spectacle seen. On four different occasions the Leader of the Opposition stood in his place, as he had a right to do, and with respect, and the Chair should have recognized him. But each time the Chair refused to recognize him. Despite all this-I say despite these irritations, despite these frustrations, despite the intensity of feeling which was engendered-this motion would not have been made had it not been for what happened on that Friday morning.
I am not going to deal with that matter in detail. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has outlined it substantially in so far as precedents and citations are concerned. May I just go back before that for a moment. If we accept this matter to which I referred a moment ago, namely the fact of the relative importance of the position of the majority in comparison with that of the minority, I suggest we are going back to the principles which prevailed 500 years ago when parliament consisted of the king's men, with the pocket boroughs and all the rest, and when the executive were in the king's pocket. It was against that arbitrary rule that we finally developed through the centuries these principles which were incorporated in this book to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred a while

House of Commons
ago. I refer to our standing orders, our rules and all the citations which preceded them. That was what evolved through the centuries.
Where are we now? As has been pointed out, because of what happened on Friday morning, in a very few minutes all of this which had happened before was scrapped and apparently thrown out the window. The Leader of the Opposition, on rising to continue a speech he had started the night before in a debate which had been adjourned in the regular way, was knocked down almost as quickly as if he had been pole-axed. He was stopped dead and ordered to sit down. He was given no opportunity to speak; he was given no opportunity to continue the debate. He was refused that right. He was even refused the right to raise a point of order and he was told by Mr. Speaker, "You have your remedy; you can appeal".
We listened to the Minister of Finance this afternoon in a long, technical, legalistic argument which I am afraid did not go too far toward defence of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but which perhaps at least put the Minister of Finance on record as having intervened in some way in this matter by a speech. What did the Minister of Finance say this afternoon? What was the whole motive and theme of his statement? It was that these appeals from the Speaker's rulings are always political, and everyone knows they are political. He said it was unfortunate that was the case but that you had to have these political decisions; and he was almost suggesting and hoping that perhaps some day we would be able to obviate the necessity for appeals from Speakers' rulings; that is, purely political appeals.
Then I would refer you to the statement of Mr. Speaker on Friday morning, as recorded at page 4542 of Hansard, when refusing the Leader of the Opposition the right to speak. He went on to say this:
... I propose not to make a ruling but to submit this position to the judgment of the house. If the house decides in favour of it, then we shall govern ourselves accordingly.
Then later on he said to the Leader of the Opposition, "You have your right; you can appeal to the house". What right was there? What justification was there, Mr. Speaker, for stopping that debate when it was stopped and for refusing to give the Leader of the Opposition even a chance to be heard?
Then later on we had that other unprecedented move that was made, this formulation of a proposition or submission to the house by the Speaker in which he attempted to reverse himself and take us back 24 hours into the previous day instead of having the

debate carried on in the way in which it should have been carried on. At page 4552 of Hansard I notice that it is put in the form of a motion: "Those who are in favour of this motion, will please say yea". Who made the motion, Mr. Speaker? Certainly not Mr. Speaker. Certainly no one on the government side of the house.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was very vociferous tonight in his defence of Mr. Speaker by interjection; but I did not notice any of them rising at any time when these discussions were on to help Mr. Speaker. I did not notice any of them answering points of order. As someone has said, Mr. Speaker had to carry the whole load himself. They sat back and allowed him to do it, or at least they did not help Mr. Speaker in any way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George Clyde Nowlan: Surely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member will
admit that on the previous Thursday evening the Minister of Finance raised a point of order about the alleged point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre as soon as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre sat down before six o'clock, and the minister raised the same point of order in an interruption of the Leader of the Opposition shortly before ten o'clock and in neither case-although the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre virtually admitted his point of order was valid-did he get a ruling.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to my hon. friend asking a question, but as I said a moment ago he has been very reluctant to get into this debate so far. I certainly do not want him to be deprived of that privilege, but I do not want him to make a speech in the middle of mine. Later on he will have an opportunity to speak if he desires to take advantage of it.
I was referring a moment ago to the fact that at page 4552 you have the usual phrasing or phraseology but it is most unusual having regard to the background: "Those who are in favour of this motion will please say yea". No motion had been made whatsoever. So we had that situation, namely that in one short morning Mr. Speaker had reversed himself with regard to what he had done the night before; he had refused debate; he made a submission from the Chair which, with deference, I suggest was unwarranted and submitted it; and then he set the clock back 24 hours.
I think it can be summed up in one way, Mr. Speaker. For some reason Mr. Speaker acted as a wrecking crew to get back on the

rails the government locomotive which had been so effectively derailed the night before, and without his intervention it never could have been put back on the rails. That is what happened. It was then, and only then, that we saw in the house the scenes which took place and to which reference has been made in the press time and time again. It was after that had occurred that the Leader of the Opposition gave notice of this motion, which the Prime Minister said was made for the purpose of delaying debate. I say that it was not made for that reason in any way shape or form.
Much has been said about intervention. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Finance who spoke this afternoon. As I said, he gave a refined, legalistic argument about the rules of the House of Commons. I noticed that there were some things with which he did not deal. I know that my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs must have read with a great deal of interest the comments which have appeared in the press lately, and particularly the editorial comments of a gentleman named Mr. Norman Smith who is a liberal certainly with a small "1" if not with a capital "L". He is one who sat here and observed these proceedings. He is well known to some hon. gentlemen opposite and is a personal friend of many. Certainly he could never be accused of making any political capital for the Conservative party. But as a disinterested observer, as a man who has travelled the world over and seen some of the scenes of disorder, some of the dissolutions of parliaments to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred the other evening, and who has travelled with him, what does he say about the events of Friday morning. He says the Liberal party tore up the rule book, and not only tore up the rule book but part of his national pride in citizenship. Moreover, they went about their tasks with a gladsome thumping of desks. Certainly, Mr. Speaker is not responsible for the thumping of desks, but that epitomizes the situation just about as succinctly, just as about as fairly as anything that could be said.
There are many things that could be read from these articles which would be very unkind. I do not want to put them on the record. Mr. Smith goes out of his way to say, and it is certainly true, that these gentlemen are not fascists; they are not commun-nists. He said they are just ignorant, and ignorance was the kindest thing that could be said about them. I think probably that is about as fair an observation as could be made. In his column Mr. Smith also goes on to say-it is unfortunate the Minister of Finance did not deal with this point this afternoon-
House of Commons
that there were notes passing back and forth between the government leader and Mr. Speaker. Sometimes other cabinet ministers were used as office boys. Finally, when the notes were intercepted, the house leader became more astute and went out into the lobby to pick up the notes carried back and forth.
Those are the facts as set forth by Mr. Norman Smith. I was hoping that this afternoon the Minister of Finance would give some explanation or stand up, as the hon. member for Kamloops did a while ago, and deny them very pointedly. No; we heard long appeals about fairness in a political situation such as this, but certainly nothing which went to any of these matters that have been referred to in the local newspapers printed here in Ottawa and which have certainly come to the attention of all who were involved in the situation. Certainly, I thought they would have been dealt with this afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I ask the hon. gentleman another question?


George Clyde Nowlan: No; make your speech afterwards. You will have plenty of time. At least, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the chair these things should be dealt with; they should be explained. At least this could be said for King James when he came into the House of Commons; he took control of the chair and threw the Speaker out of it. He did not skulk behind the chair, and that is more than a suggestion of what has gone on around this place.


An hon. Member:: What king did you say?


George Clyde Nowlan: King James; but you have a better knowledge of history than I and perhaps it was Charles, at any rate one of the Stuarts. It was three hundred years ago. I can understand why the minister would be a better authority than I am because the government is repeating the same procedure that was carried on in those days. He probably made a study of the technique that was used, but I say at least the Stuarts took over the chair. I have even heard the remark that once in this house when the chairman was refusing to "see" an hon. member, some hon. member was so exasperated he may have gone up and twisted the chairman's head around and said, "Now can you see him?" But at any rate neither he nor the Stuart king skulked behind the chair.
At any rate, there were those events of black Friday for which there has been no explanation. We all know that Mr. Speaker was under tremendous difficulty. We know he was tired. We know he had been sitting in that chair under a terriffic strain. We recognize all those things, and the same would apply of course to his assistants, the deputy

House of Commons
and the deputy chairman. However, that does not explain what happened; that cannot explain this reversal which took place on Friday morning.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Finance talk about his great qualities, his experience, his personality, none of which is denied. This makes it all the more difficult to understand why he acted the way he did on Friday morning. A less experienced man, one who had made many mistakes before, one who was not conversant with the rules, one who was not a thorough gentleman, could have been expected to crack up under the pressure of some of the things which were done. It is because of that complete reversal, because of this background that suggestions, call them innuendoes if you like, have been made deliberately in the press as to what has gone on; and yet no explanation has been given.
It is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, to have this motion before us. We regret the necessity for it, but it was time it was dealt with. It had to be dealt with. Parliament could not continue, and how it is going to continue I do not know. A while ago the Minister of Finance said he hoped that after this was disposed of personal friendships could be restored. I hope so too. Personal friendships are something which we all value. One of the great traditions of our parliamentary system is that we do not allow the acrimony of debate on public matters to interfere with personal relationships and personal friendships. But personal friendships be as they may, the fact remains that parliament cannot carry on unless there is implicit confidence in the Chair, its impartiality and its independence of the executive. This confidence has gone. I say with all the seriousness which I can command, Mr. Speaker, that confidence cannot be restored in this parliament. There is only one way.
Someone suggested a while ago, and I thought it was another innuendo, that perhaps we were bringing this on to force an election. We are certainly not bringing this on to force an election. There are other ways if we wanted to do that which could perhaps be explored. I do say that although this certainly was not brought on with any such intention, the root problem will not be solved until after an election, until after a new government and a new house have come back and new officials have been elected. Then perhaps we can start to rebuild and repair the damage which was done during the last few days.
As has been said by so many others more effectively than I can say it, it is not a matter

of the ruling on Friday; it is not the special damage which may have been done to one party or the assistance which may have been given to another, serious as those things may be, but the fact that these are part of the precedents of the House of Commons. They have become part of the fabric and will become interwoven into our parliamentary procedure.
They cannot be allowed to exist in that way, Mr. Speaker. Something will have to be done under a new parliament to eradicate these things and restore the prestige of the Chair. It is for that reason we feel as strongly as we do, and why I am speaking on this motion tonight. It is parliament, the institution which we have revered, which we respect and which the thousands of people who were lining up trying to get into the galleries revered and respected as well. It is indeed woven into the warp and woof of our being, and damage has been done to it-I was going to say almost irreparable damage. It is irreparable under the existing circumstances. I think it can be rectified in time, but it is a matter which must be dealt with by this house.
A partisan vote may be necessary. I quite appreciate, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said this afternoon, that may be the result. I have no illusions, either, as to the result of this vote, but it will be recorded in Hansard that the opposition has stood up and protected what it sincerely believed to be the rights of parliament. The opposition has gone further than any one individual would have gone to preserve those rights, and that will probably be the most healthy precedent of all which will come out of this turmoil and trouble of the past few weeks.


Walter Edward Harris: I rise on a question of personal privilege. I was engaged with my officials on some matters which may come before the house later, and I was absent when the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings was speaking. I understand he made some reference to a newspaper article that had to do with the passing of notes, and inquired as to why I had not already mentioned the matter.


George Clyde Nowlan: I said I expected you would have dealt with the matter this afternoon.


Walter Edward Harris: I did not because up to that time no one had mentioned it or taken the responsibility of speaking on the point or making any assertion that there was any truth whatever in the statement. That is why I did not mention it this afternoon.
I wish to point out that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did rise on a point of

personal privilege with respect to this other article the other day. That was because he was quoted in the article. Nothing in this article quotes me, but I shall read it for the benefit of hon. members and make an explanation.


George Clyde Nowlan: Just so there will not be any misunderstanding, the Minister of Finance is quoting from a different article. I quoted from Norman Smith.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not read Norman
Smith's article.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is the article I quoted from.


Walter Edward Harris: I have no doubt it applies to the same thing-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, while no one will question the right of the minister to rise on a question that relates to real privilege, he certainly cannot rise in regard to a quotation from one editorial and then start to read another. If he has any comment to make about the one that was read, that certainly could be a question of privilege; but most certainly there can be no question of privilege relating to that which would make it permissible to read some other editorial.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the editorial complained of makes reference to my exchange of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. Just before the Minister of Finance continues, in order to know where we are at this particular point of privilege, I think we have had to state several times in the last few weeks that where a member wished to contest a reference to himself made during a speech, he had the right to do that as a matter of personal explanation following the speech. I think that is admitted. Should this turn out to be a different question of privilege from the one arising out of the speech of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, then of course it would be brought up on the orders of the day. I would gather from what has been said that it does refer to the same incident; therefore I think, under our recently established practice of personal explanation at the end of a speech, that this is the time for the Minister of Finance to do it.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is-I regret that I cannot express it perhaps correctly because I did not hear what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings actually said-that there is a statement that I exchanged notes with the chairman, and
House of Commons
there is a reference to an occasion when I spoke to my colleague the Minister of National Revenue.
Let me speak about that for one moment. I noticed that Mr. Speaker appeared to be, shall I say, distraught or ill at ease. I spoke to my medical colleague and suggested to him it might be desirable to find out whether Mr. Speaker needed any medical attention. That was all I did that day with respect to my colleague, and whether or not he sent anything to Mr. Speaker under those circumstances I do not know.
With respect to the chairman of the committee, let me point out that I spoke to the chairman of the committee after I had been informed by those who inquired how or under what circumstances this report could have arisen, and I was informed by him that it is his courtesy to notify whips of parties that they have a speaker coming up in a few moments, or something of that nature; that it had been done all during that day and that the reporter must have seen this happen, and that the thing being sent by the chairman of the committee was one of those notes. I received no note whatever from the chairman, nor did I send any to him. Nothing that is in the newspaper I read has any basis of fact in so far as my making communication of that kind :s concerned.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Chairman, on a further question of privilege, I want to corroborate what the Minister of Finance has said. I ordered the cheapest prescription in the world, a glass of water. I think it was Christ who said, "a glass of water in my name shall not go unrewarded."


John George Diefenbaker: Oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, let me trace the history of the motion that has been under discussion tonight in order to put the record straight in some aspects of the distortions that have been made of the proceedings. You will recall, sir, that when I rose on a question of privilege I was instructed by Mr. Speaker that it would be necessary for me to follow a certain procedure if I wished to pursue the matter. He outlined that procedure to me and I followed it. It included the drafting of a motion, the finding of an hon. member to second it, and sending the motion to the Speaker in the chair.
There has been the suggestion here this evening that Mr. Speaker was in doubt at that time as to whether the motion was in order; that he had in fact almost decided

House of Commons
on the Thursday night that on Friday he would have to rule it out of order. I can well understand why my hon. friends in the cabinet should wish to convey that impression; but I suggest to you, sir, that it is a continuation of the cruel and callous treatment which that cabinet has meted out to the Speaker of this house. It is a determination that he shall be made the goat all the way down.
I am going to quote from page 4532 of Hansard to show that Mr. Speaker not only had no doubt that it was in order but so indicated to the house at that time, because he interrupted the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking with these words:
Order. I intervene at this moment to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that in debating this matter one cannot go beyond what is considered privilege. In this article which I have just read it is my view that what may be called privilege in the letter written by Miss Marjorie Le Lacheur is the last paragraph:
"It means nothing to them that debate in the house has long been a farce, with the cat-calls and jeers of the Liberals, and the systematic garroting of the opposition by Mr. Speaker ..." These are the words:
"... and the systematic garroting of the opposition by Mr. Speaker, making a mockery of this democracy for which so many of their fathers have died."
The words that are privilege are "the systematic garroting of the opposition by Mr. Speaker". All the other words are not privilege.
Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar raised the question at that point as to whether the narrowing of the points of privilege suggested by the Speaker was in fact correct and suggested that it was more or less an attack on the whole house. Following that, Mr. Speaker reiterated his position and in the paragraph the Minister of Finance did not read this afternoon Mr. Speaker said this:
I am under the impression-and I am sure the hon. member upon reflection will agree with me- that, freedom of the press being what it is, freedom of expression outside this parliament and the right of criticising whatever takes place here being what it is, no one on a question of privilege should object to the first two paragraphs and, even in the third paragraph, no one should object to anything if there were not those few words, in which the Speaker is accused of a systematic garroting of the opposition. As far as the other paragraphs are concerned, I see no privilege at all in them.
Now, there is the clear statement of the Speaker of this house that he recognized that my motion was in order the night before, and any contention now on the part of members of the cabinet that he had already half made up his mind to rule it out of order is a gross distortion of Mr. Speaker's expressed views on the evening of Thursday, May 31. When he ruled it out of order on Friday, June 1, he did not actually rule on the question as to whether or not my motion was in order. I had 
brought a motion before the house. Mr. Speaker ruled not whether my motion was in order but whether the charges contained in the motion were sustainable. When he reversed his decision of the night before I was faced with the question as to what had induced him to do so, and I could think of only three alternatives.
The first was that my motion was actually out of order, that Mr. Speaker had been mistaken, that his knowledge and understanding of the rules of procedure had not been adequate to make a decision as to whether or not my motion was in order. After all that has been said on all sides of the house both this afternoon and on previous occasions when this matter has been discussed, no hon. member will seriously contend that the Speaker of this house is not competent to decide whether or not a motion is in order. We have had very lengthy eulogies concerning his vast fund of knowledge of parliamentary procedure. It has been stated that with the possible exception of one Speaker our present Speaker stands head and shoulders above the usual speakers of the Canadian House of Commons in possessing an exhaustive knowledge of the rules of procedure.
I think we have to throw that suggestion out. Mr. Speaker at that time knew this motion was in order; he was not just guessing, he knew it and he expressed to the house, as I have shown quite clearly, his reasons for thinking it was in order.
That brings me to my next possible alternative for his extraordinary action on the morning of Friday, June 1; and that is that Mr. Speaker maliciously and deliberately gave me wrong advice with the intention of ruling it out of order at a later date. That also is a proposition to which I cannot subscribe; it goes against all the past record of Mr. Speaker. Not only that, it cannot be sustained when one places it alongside Mr. Speaker's reactions not only on this occasion but on a previous occasion when I raised a similar question of privilege with regard to an editorial appearing in a Montreal newspaper. On both those occasions Mr. Speaker expressed himself as gravely concerned over the seriousness of these situations. In fact when the much publicized attempt of the Minister of Finance to raise a point of order on this particular motion was brought to the attention of the house Mr. Speaker had this to say:
The matter raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) is one of privilege and is one that is very serious. I had not seen the letter entitled "They Will Pay" but I had read the letter written by Mr. Eugene Forsey, in which he discusses instances in which I was myself involved. 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.
Now it is true he suggested postponement of it, but he also referred to our having placed ourselves in a position where we could do something about it. The reference very clearly is to a motion which he considered to be in order. No, sir; I cannot believe that the Speaker deliberately and maliciously gave me faulty advice in order later to be able to rule the motion out of order. It was a matter he took too seriously to play ducks and drakes with on any cynical basis of that sort.
Now, we have to seek for some other reason. The only reason that comes to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is that in those fateful hours between 10 o'clock on the night of May 31 and 11 o'clock on the morning of June 1 the Speaker of this house must have been subjected to persuasion, to pressure, to evil counsel of some sort to persuade him to declare out of order a motion which he himself had accepted, had helped to draft, and which he had indicated was definitely in order.
It is not possible, of course, Mr. Speaker, for us to know who can have given that advice; but that such advice must have been given is I think incontrovertible. And while we cannot know who gave that advice we do know of people in a position to give that advice, and we do know of people to whom the implementation of such advice would have been of great advantage.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is the way Senator McCarthy talks.


Colin Cameron: I am not coming to McCarthy at all; I am coming to a few other things. The Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons occupies a precarious position of eminence from which at the end of the life of parliament he has to step down. There are a number of positions of dignity and honour, positions in which he can hope to find further opportunities for public service. All those positions are within the power of the government of the day to grant or to withhold.
It has been suggested that Mr. Speaker proceeded to reverse a mistake he had made. I submit, sir, that if that is true with regard to other actions he took on that occasion, the action of listening to the point of order of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, it is distinctly not the case with regard to this motion, because if you will recall he handled the two situations in an entirely different manner. His decision with regard to my motion was not included as a part of
House of Commons
the mistake he sought to rectify by placing a proposition before this house. It is an entirely different action. He took the action of ruling it out of order. Somewhere, at some time, he was persuaded that his action of the night before in accepting and helping to draft my motion had been out of order. Somehow he was persuaded that the motion itself was out of order.
I find it difficult to believe, sir, that among his colleagues on the other side of the house the Speaker of the House of Commons found someone more versed in the procedure of this chamber than himself, in the light of the fact that with the rather doubtful exception of the Minister of Finance no member of the cabinet has risen through all this time to oppose the points of order raised from the opposition. This would lead me and I think anyone else to the conclusion that there is not anyone on the other side of the house now capable of disputing the points of order raised from this side.
I see that the Minister of Finance laughs. If by his laughter he means that he or others are so capable, then I say it was a contemptible thing for the government of the day to allow the Speaker of this house to deal by himself with the points of order that were raised continually from this side of the house, to place him in the impossible position not of being the judge as between two opposing sides but having to take up the arguments presented by one side. I am still of the opinion, sir, that there is not anyone on that side of the house sufficiently versed in procedure to be able to give valid and honest advice to the Speaker of this house to cause him to reverse a considered decision that he had made.
I have been puzzled, as have many other hon. members of this house, by the strange procedural activities of this government during the whole presentation of the pipe-lines bill to the house. I have wondered why they apparently took great thought to select the most difficult ways in which to get this measure through. The first sample, of course, was when quite out of order they placed a second resolution on the order paper while one dealing with the same subject was already there. That was a totally unnecessary proceeding. I recall that at that time the government received advice from my hon. friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to how they could emerge from the difficulty they had themselves created.
I suggest to you that we have to look further for a solution to this strange problem, and it is a strange problem, a strange problem of a government so inept that it is unable to get its measures through the House

House of Commons
of Commons within the accepted rules of this house. I would suggest to you that perhaps an explanation can be found in the constitution of the present administration. I think it is no accident that the government that has involved itself in a most fantastic tangle of procedure, that has been driven in the course of that tangle to utterly destroy the most notable Speaker this house has seen for decades. It is not an accident that many of the members of that administration have stepped right into cabinet positions without any experience in parliamentary life.
I would suggest to you that this has been the root cause of the trouble through which we have been going the last few years, and the last few days in particular. When one looks at the front treasury benches he finds that with two exceptions no minister has sat on the floor of this house as a private member, and no minister at all has sat on the floor of this house as a member in opposition. This creates a very grave situation for parliament. I am not attempting to deny that eminent university presidents, distinguished corporation lawyers and higher civil servants are men of great ability. They are possibly of greater ability than other men who could be found within the membership of the Liberal party; but their abilities were not the abilities of parliamentarians because there is only one place in which a man can qualify for this difficult business of parliamentary life, and that is in the ranks of parliament itself.
I would suggest that this growing habit on the part of this administration of bringing in from outside the ranks of parliament cabinet ministers without parliamentary experience is destroying the very roots of parliament. This institution has several functions to perform. It is not merely an institution for the passing of legislation by the existing government, it is the developing ground for competent parliamentary leadership.
When we have a party-and I address this to the rank and file of the Liberal party- which has acquiesced in this practice, it has been acquiescing in the degradation of parliament because these men, eminent as they are, lack one thing. They are men who have not, like the Minister of Finance and like the Minister of National Health and Welfare, been prepared in their earlier years to take the grave risks involved in embarking upon a political career. On the other hand, they have sought their eminence in other fields and later come to crown it with political eminence. That is a most dangerous precedent and practice for parliament to follow, when parliament should be composed of ordinary men and women representing ordinary men and women throughout the nation.

From the ranks of the membership must come those men who have developed their capacities and their abilities to use the procedures and rules of parliament in order to effect their policies. I can understand that the minister of external affairs may perhaps feel badly about my comments, but I want to say to him that the very qualities which made him a valuable servant of the people in the civil service are not qualities that make him valuable in the House of Commons when it comes to dealing with difficult parliamentary situations. He never had to face them during his earlier career.
It will not be until we get back to the original purposes of parliament, to the original proceedings and traditions of parliament, that we shall avoid the sort of tragic mess into which we got last week. I think it is a damning indictment of a government with an overwhelming majority that it should have been unable to devise means of using the regular procedures of this house to effect the passage of their legislation. It is an admission of total ineptitude and failure as leaders of the Canadian parliament that they had to take recourse to breaches of the rules which have led to this unhappy debate during these last two days. It is particularly tragic that a man who had earned not only the respect of this parliament but the respect of the nation should have been made the victim of the ineptitude of this government, and ineptitude it was, as I think every member of it now recognizes in his secret heart.
I would suggest that there is no solution to be found in the mere passing or rejection of the motion before us. As the Minister of Finance has said, when it comes to a vote the matter will be decided on party lines and the vote will mean nothing. A vote will not in any way obliterate the sad fact that a large minority in this house has had its confidence in the impartiality of the Chair destroyed by the ineptitude and folly of the present administration.
I notice that some members of the cabinet are so little seized of the seriousness of the crime they have committed as to smile smugly about this situation. It is nothing to smile about, it is something that has to be cleared up. I am not making any empty suggestion when I suggest to the Prime Minister that he has something to retrieve. I am not alone in my view that he has failed sadly this parliament and this country in these last strenuous and trying days.
I imagine he has read the newspapers. I imagine he realizes that the people of Canada are disappointed that they had hoped he could master the art of using parliamentary procedures, that they hoped he could retain

control of the democratic processes of this country. I suggest to him that, having failed to do so, there is only one course open to him, the course of appealing to the people and allowing them to judge. I say this in no boastful way at all. I am not at all sure that I would come back here after another election; far from it. I think it is quite possible that I might be left at home, but I would rather be left at home than continue in the unhappy situation in which we are today.
Despite the words that have been said on this side of the house in, I think, all sincerity that this situation is not going to be allowed to interfere with the personal friendships that have been developed here, I am afraid that is a too optimistic point of view and that it is going to take a long time for the resentments, the rancours and the dis-illusionments that have been created over the last week or so to finally disappear. The first and essential step for clearing the air is that the twenty-second parliament of Canada should come to an end at the earliest possible moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that whatever may have happened in the house during the past few days we will all agree that the discussion of this particular motion has been approached by every hon. member almost throughout in a spirit at least of seemingly objective manner. I paid particular attention to the speech delivered tonight by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I followed with interest the speech just delivered by the hon. member for Nanaimo and the speech of the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, but I paid special attention to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
He began his remarks by saying that this discussion of the motion before the house caused him to have a heavy heart. I am sure he used a phrase that most hon. gentlemen could, with justification repeat. He reminded us that there was no friendship in this house that he cherished as much as his friendship with Mr. Speaker. He told us that there was never a Speaker in this house whose industry was as great, that there never was a Speaker with knowledge of our procedures and the procedures of free parliaments over the course of the centuries as great, as precise and as mature.
Then he said that he hoped that his friendship with the Speaker would be maintained
House of Comvions
and would continue. Only a man who was lacking in the elements of civility would deny that that was a legitimate hope. I too hope that the friendship which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had with Mr. Speaker will be maintained, for I suppose that no one in the whole time I have been a member of the House of Commons, now almost 21 years, has enjoyed in his relations in this house as great a measure of cordial relationship with the presiding officer as the member for Winnipeg North Centre. On many occasions his enthusiasm with respect to his interest in the rules of the house would cause him, not improperly, after the Speaker's ruling had been made, to go to the Speaker's chair and presumably in a spirit of academic interest, which is understandable, discuss with Mr. Speaker the wisdom or lack of wisdom in a particular decision. The hon. gentleman himself and only he has the control over whether or not the friendship of which he has spoken tonight shall be maintained.
The hon. member went on then and said, and I use his words, that no one will deny that Mr. Speaker has done a good job. Then he raised his voice and said with emotion: "No one ever in my time in this house has done a better job." Then he went on and pointed out that he had corrected the Minister of Finance, that there had only been two appeals from Mr. Speaker's rulings and that on one occasion the party which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre supports had, if I understood him correctly, refused to join in voting against the Speaker's ruling. Then my hon. friend concluded, "No wonder I say that Mr. Speaker has had in this house a remarkable performance."
I calculated by the clock the time that my hon. friend spent on Mr. Speaker's admirable qualities. In over two-thirds of the time he spoke the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said more things by way of' confirmation of the validity of the performance of the Speaker than any other member, and we can only conclude from what he has said that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, up until a very few days ago, was firmly of the view that within his experience this house has had no better Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Martin the debate was adjourned.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame: de Grace):
1.	By provinces, how many sufferers from diabetes are there in Canada?
2.	How many of these are hospitalized?
3.	Is the government currently engaged in any activities designed directly to assist Canadian diabetics?
4.	If so, of what nature?
5.	Are any further measures to assist Canadian diabetics currently under consideration?
6.	If so, of what nature?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1.	There is no accurate gauge of the number of diabetics in Canada. According to preliminary estimates based on Canada's sickness survey, population basis 13,000,000, there are about 40,000 known diabetics; however, medical experience has shown that for every reported case, there are about three unreported cases.
2.	There are approximately 8,500 hospital admissions per year in Canada of patients requiring treatment for diabetes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Federal assistance totalling more than $65,000 has been provided under the national health program to support research and surveys on the detection of diabetes. Research in diabetic problems is being supported at present at the University of Western Ontario and at Queen's University.
The Food and Drugs Act provides that all insulin preparations must meet the standards set forth in the food and drug regulations. In addition, the conditions under which these preparations are manufactured are constantly reviewed by the food and drug inspectors. The regulations also provide for specific labelling requirements to prevent confusion regarding the potency and the use of each preparation.
The advertisement to the general public of any preparation for the prevention or treatment of diabetes is prohibited by the act, thus preventing the exposure of diabetics to useless or harmful preparations.
The food and drug regulations also require informative labelling of special food products sold for persons on sugar-restricted diets.
5 and 6. The Department of National Health and Welfare will continue to give the most careful consideration to any projects designed
to assist Canadian diabetics when submitted by the provinces under the national health program.


URBAN AIR POLLUTION
Mr. Richardson: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare taking any part in the solution of the urban air pollution problem?
Answer by: Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of
National Health and Welfare):
1. Yes. The Department of National Health and Welfare has assisted the international joint commission for several years in the investigation of the problem of air pollution in the Windsor-Detroit area in accordance with the terms of the reference of January, 1949, between Canada and the United States. A two-year epidemiological study of sickness experience of selected groups of the population in high and low pollution areas of Windsor, and in small country towns of southern Ontario, was carried out from 1953 to 1955. Other aspects of this investigation of the urban air pollution problem have dealt with the nature and concentration of contaminants in the environment, the influence of meteorological factors, the problem of smoke emission from great lakes vessel traffic on the Detroit river and its control, and the effects on vegetation. A final report on the above reference is being prepared this year.
Since January 1, 1956, this department has also undertaken certain responsibilities in this field with the appointment of a consultant, atmospheric pollution services, who is also the chairman of the Canadian section of a technical advisory board to the international joint commission. Requests for advisory services from the provinces and other governmental agencies have been coming forward on an increasing scale. The following is an outline of these activities:
(a)	The pollution of the air from oil refinery operations involving the emission of toxic substances such as hydrogen sulphide, mercaptans, phenols, and other odoriferous compounds.
(b)	The control of emissions of fluorides, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide from contemplated operations of a new phosphate fertilizer and nitro-chemical plant.
(c)	The analysis and control of diesel exhaust gas fumes from engine-operated equipment in underground and mining operations.
(d)	At the request of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada a complete revision has been undertaken of regulations and orders dealing with

control of atmospheric pollution from railroad operations of companies subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
The epidemiological and occupational health divisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare are collaborating in a study of atmospheric pollution levels and their possible effects on the health of aged hospital patients in the Ottawa area.
The laboratory services of the occupational health division are conducting laboratory research directed towards the study of the biological effects of various toxic gases and
Questions
aerosols, including the effects of substances found in contaminated urban atmospheres. The laboratory services have also studied for several years the problem of atmospheric pollution from gold refining operations in the Yellowknife area.
Consideration is being given to the possibility of the establishment of a national network of sampling stations for the measurement of atmospheric contamination levels in urban areas of Canada in co-operation with provincial departments of health, municipal air pollution control officials and certain federal departments.

GATT-Tariff Revisions


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
The Department of External Affairs announced today details of the tariff agreements which were negotiated under the general agreement on tariffs and trade at the recently concluded conference in Geneva. The head of the Canadian delegation, Mr. L. D. Wilgress, signed on behalf of Canada on May 23 the protocol of supplementary concessions to the GATT in which are incorporated the complete schedules of all the tariff concessions negotiated at the conference. Details of the agreements were tabled in the House of Commons this morning.
The tariff conference, which opened in January, 1956, and was recently concluded at Geneva, constitutes the fourth general round of multilateral tariff negotiations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, following similar GATT conferences held at Geneva in 1947, at Annecy in 1949 and at Torquay in 1951. Twenty-two countries participated in these latest negotiations, and the new agreements concluded among them are an extension of the agreements drawn up among GATT countries in the previous years. As in the past, the negotiations were carried on between pairs or groups of countries, on a selective product by product basis.
Canada negotiated new agreements with the United States and with 12 other countries in Europe and Latin America. Under the most favoured nation principle, which is basic to the GATT, all tariff concessions agreed to at Geneva will become available to Canada whether or not these concessions were negotiated directly with Canada. Similarly, Canada will automatically extend its own tariff concessions to each of the other participating countries, and to non-GATT countries with which Canada has most favoured nation agreements.
The complete schedules of all tariff concessions negotiated at this conference are being made public today. They are incorporated in a protocol of supplementary concessions to the GATT signed by representatives of participating countries at Geneva. Mr. L. D. Wilgress, Canadian ambassador to NATO, signed this protocol on behalf of Canada on May 23.
The new tariff concessions will come into affect in the various countries on dates to be announced by each government. It is not expected that any country will bring its concessions into effect until June 30 at the earliest. United States concessions will be implemented in three stages over the next two years, as required by United States legislation. Under the terms of the GATT, all the
concessions agreed upon are bound against increase, subject to certain procedures permitting countries to renegotiate particular concessions from time to time.
The following review indicates the main concessions secured by Canada and the main concessions granted by Canada as a result of these negotiations. For further details, inquiries should be addressed to the international trade relations branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce with respect to the tariffs of other countries, and to the international economic relations division of the Department of Finance with respect to the Canadian tariff.
Concessions Obtained by Canada
The United States
The United States concluded agreements at this conference with Canada and all the other participating countries, and granted concessions over a wide range of goods. The agreement concluded between Canada and the United States was one of the major single agreements resulting from this conference.
The United States conducted these negotiations under the authority of its trade agreements legislation, which permits maximum reductions in the United States tariff of about 15 per cent of the rates of duty in force on January 1, 1955. Under United States legislation, these reductions must be implemented in three approximately equal steps of about 5 per cent of present rates, with an intervening period of 12 months between each stage. The first 5 per cent stage of United States duty reductions will be made effective on June 30, 1956. Within these limitations, Canada secured the maximum possible reductions in United States duties over a large number of products. Concessions were obtained on almost all the items of interest to Canada on which the United States was prepared to negotiate. The delay in the complete implementation of United States concessions was taken fully into account by both countries in arriving at a satisfactory balance of concessions.
The United States schedule of concessions resulting from this conference contains some 650 tariff items, of which approximately 150 are of interest to Canadian exporters, and represent imports into the United States from Canada totalling over $200 million in 1954. These concessions include items of interest to Canadian producers and manufacturers in various regions of Canada.
The United States list of concessions includes a variety of chemical products, such

as synthetic rubber, vinyl acetate, vanillin, barytes and a number of chemical compounds; a number of metals, including crude aluminum and its alloys, aluminum bars and sheets, steel ingots and billets, ferro-silicon; a few agricultural products, such as lettuce, turnips, hay, blueberries; some paper products, such as book and printing paper, wrapping paper and hanging paper; a number of more highly processed products, such as manufactures of aluminum, of iron and steel, of wood, and of glass, various types of machinery and electrical goods.
Details of the main items of interest to Canada, showing the present United States rates of duty and the final United States negotiated rates of duty which will be in force at the end of two years, are given below. A table showing the three stages of reduction for all items of interest to Canada is being published by the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Chemicals
Concessions were obtained on the following
products:-Synthetic rubber, from 10 per cent to 8£ per cent; vinyl acetate, from 7£ per cent and 1£ cent lb. to 6J per cent and 1£ cent lb.; acetic anhydride, from 1J cent lb. to 1£ cent lb.; acetone, from 10 per cent to 8J per cent; vanillin, from 22 i per cent and 3£ cents lb. to 19 per cent and 3 cents lb.; methyl alcohol, from 18 cents gal. to 15-3 cents gal.; barytes ore, crude, from $3 ton to $2.55 ton; aluminum salts and compounds, not specially provided for (nspf), paints, chlorine and all chemical elements, salts and compounds, nspf, from 12 J per cent to 10J per cent.
Metals and metal manufactures
In this field, reductions were obtained on a number of important items: Aluminum and alloys, in crude form, from 1£ cents lb. to 1J cents lb.; in sheets, bars, and specified shapes, from 3 cents lb. to 2J cents lb.; steel ingot and billet, valued not over 5 cents per pound, from 10 per cent to 8£ per cent; wire and cable of aluminum, copper, and other base metal, from 17J per cent to 15 per cent; forgings of iron or steel, from 12£ per cent to 10£ per cent; storage batteries and parts, except alkaline type, from 20 per cent to 17 per cent; aluminum table and household ware, from 20 per cent and 4| cents lb. to 17 per cent and 3-J cents lb.; electrotype plates, from 12£ per cent to 10£ per cent; electric therapeutic apparatus, from 174 per cent to 15 per cent; electric motors, and electrical goods and devices, n.e.s. from 12J Per cent to 104 per cent; parts for automobiles, from 12£ per cent to 10J per cent; airplanes and parts, from 15 per cent to 124 per cent; pleasure boats, sail, steam or motor
GATT-Tariff Revisions propelled, under $15,000 each, from 7J per cent to 6 per cent; pulp and paper machinery, from 10 per cent to 8J per cent; mining machinery, sawmill and wood-working machinery, and all machinery, not specially provided for, from 13 J per cent to UJ per cent; articles of aluminum, and articles of iron or steel, not specially provided for, from 22£ per cent to 19 per cent. The statutory rate on copper, which is presently suspended, is reduced from 2 cents lb. to 1-7 cents lb.
Wood manufactures
In this group are concessions on: Paint brush handles, and broom and mop handles, from 10 per cent to 8£ per cent; canoes and paddles, from 10 per cent to 8£ per cent, furniture, from 12J per cent to 104 Per cent; parts of furniture, from 20 per cent to 17 per cent; doors, from 16§ per cent to 15 per cent.
Agricultural and fisheries products
Concessions were secured on the following: Edible offal, from 1£ cents lb. to 1J cents lb., (6 per cent minimum); pickled or salted salmon, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; caviar and other fish roe (except sturgeon), from 5 cents lb. to 4 cents lb.; canned herring, not in oil, from 6J per cent to 5 per cent; biscuits and baked articles, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; frozen blueberries, from 8f per cent to 74 per cent; berry jams and jellies, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; soy beans, certified seed, from 2 cents lb. to 1-7 cents lb.; sweet clover seed and bromegrass seed, from 1 cent lb. to 8/10 cent lb.; turnips from 6J cents 100 lbs. to 5 cents 100 lb.; lettuce, from 1 cent lb. to 0-85 cent lb.; cauliflower, from 12£ per cent to 11 per cent; hay, from $1.25 ton to $1.06 ton.
Papers
New concessions under this heading are: Uncoated book and printing paper, nspf, from 5 per cent and 1/5 cent lb. to 4 per cent and 0-17 cent lb.; surface coated paper, nspf, from 7£ per cent and 21 cents lb. to 6J per cent and 1J cent lb.; greaseproof and imitation parchment paper, from 74 per cent and 1£ cents lb. to 6J per cent and 1J cents lb.; hanging paper, from 5 per cent to 4 per cent; wrapping paper, sulphate, from 10 per cent to 8J per cent.
Miscellaneous
Among the concessions under this heading are the following: Asbestos brake and clutch lining, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; abrasive coated paper and cloth, from 10 per cent to 8J per cent; glove and garment leather, from 10 per cent to 84 per cent; manufactures of leather, nspf, from 124 per cent to 10J
[Stage Direction]
GATT-Tariff Revisions per cent; boots and shoes, made by welt process, from 40 cents pr. to 34 cents pr.; laminated sheets of synthetic resin, from 12J per cent and 7i cents lb. to 10J per cent and 6£ cents lb.; piano parts, from 20 per cent to 17 per cent; and mud dispersant derived from coniferous bark, from 10 per cent to 8| per cent.
Europe
Canada concluded new agreements with the following European countries: Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden. Extensive tariff concessions had already been obtained from these countries in previous negotiations under the GATT. However, as a result of the latest negotiations, many further concessions of interest to Canadian exporters have been granted by these countries.
While direct negotiations between Canada and European countries were not extensive, Canada will also benefit from concessions which these countries granted to the other European countries participating at this conference including the United Kingdom, and to the United States. Moreover, Canada did not negotiate with Finland, France and Turkey, but some of the concessions which these countries negotiated with others are also of interest to Canada.
In a few cases, the concessions made in European tariffs are reductions in statutory rates of duty which have been temporarily reduced by administrative action. Such concessions ensure that the lower rates resulting from the negotiations will be the maximum applicable rates. It should also be noted that many of the concessions of interest to Canada are on products or in countries where discriminatory restrictions have been removed.
A summary of the more significant European concessions is given below.
Austria
Austria was authorized by the contracting parties to the GATT to conduct its negotiations on the basis of a new draft tariff which is awaiting approval by the Austrian government. While rates of duty previously bound under the GATT continue in force under this new tariff, increased duties are scheduled on many items which are not bound. The negotiations thus offered an opportunity for obtaining reductions from this higher level.
Canada obtained a reduction on whisky, from the draft tariff rate of 3,500 schillings per 100 kilos to a rate of 2,450 schillings per 100 kilos. This reduction brings the bound rate on Canadian whisky to the level of the rate on bourbon whisky which the United
States had negotiated with Austria in the course of GATT tariff renegotiations in 1955.
Other Austrian concessions of interest to Canada include a reduction in the duty on sheer nylon dress and lingerie fabrics from 35 per cent with a minimum of 14,000 schillings per 100 kilos to 32 per cent with a minimum of 11,000 schillings per 100 kilos; and a reduction on bookkeeping and calculating machines from 1,400 to 1,000 schillings per 100 kilos. The duty-free entry of tallow for technical purposes was bound.
Benelux
The common customs tariff of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg is not high and many leading Canadian exports to these countries are bound under the GATT either duty free or at low levels of duty. Nevertheless the negotiations provided a useful opportunity for obtaining concessions which are of interest to Canada. The three Benelux countries offer a substantially open market for Canadian goods, free from exchange and import restrictions.
The following are among the more important concessions, from the Canadian point of view. While lumber is admitted into the Benelux countries duty free on a temporary basis, the existing legal duty on larger sizes of coniferous lumber was reduced from 10 per cent to 3 per cent, which is also the rate of duty for standard sizes. The duty on a narrow range of odd sizes of coniferous lumber was reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. The legal rate of duty on canned salmon was reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent; the existing duty on wood alcohol for the production of formaldehyde was reduced from 18 per cent to 12 per cent, on spark plugs from 12 per cent to 10 per cent and on parts of calculating and bookkeeping machines from 8 per cent to 6 per cent. Reductions were also granted in the duty on frozen tongues of bovine animals and pork, kraft paper, pressure cooking stoves of copper, loud speakers and microphones for telegraphy and telephony, and on organs. The existing duties were bound against an increase on crude rapeseed oil, on salted and pickled horse meat, and on some grades of paper and paperboard.
Denmark
Concessions on most of Canadian principal exports to Denmark had been obtained at earlier GATT conferences. Duty-free entry is bound on many of these items, while the duties on some others are bound at low levels. At the present conference, the duty-free entry of flax seed was bound and the duty on spark plugs was reduced from 0-10 krone to 0-05 krone per kilo. Canadian exports of these
[Stage Direction]
products to Denmark increased considerably following removal of import restrictions last year.
Among other concessions of interest to Canada, the duty on canned peaches was reduced from 0 [DOT] 65 krone to 0 [DOT] 55 krone per kilo, and the existing duties were bound on planks and boards of Douglas fir and on radio navigation apparatus.
Finland
Canada did not negotiate directly with Finland. However, in its agreements with other countries, Finland granted some concessions which are of interest to Canada, including the elimination of the existing duty of 9 marks per kilo on mineral and vegetable blacks, a reduction in the duty on thin aluminum foil from 150 marks to 75 marks per kilo, and the binding of duty-free entry on rubber substitutes and on certain machines for the pulp and paper industry.
France
At the previous GATT conferences concessions had been negotiated by France on about two-thirds of the items in the French customs tariff. Among the products on which new concessions have been granted are the following: aluminum hydroxide bound against increase at 15 per cent ad valorem; lecithin, reduced from 20 per cent to 18 per cent; patent leather, reduced from 17 per cent to 15 per cent; and certain types of sewing machines, reduced from 12 per cent to 11 per cent ad valorem.
Germany
Germany granted concessions on a wide range of products. The concessions of primary interest to Canada include reductions in the duty on whisky, from 375 marks to 325 marks and from 575 marks to 525 marks per 100 kilos respectively depending on the size of the containers; a binding on canned salmon at 20 per cent and a reduction on canned lobster from 30 per cent to 20 per cent; an elimination of the 8 per cent duty on unbleached sulphate pulp and a reduction on bleached sulphate pulp from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; a reduction on ferro-silicon of high silicon content from 12 per cent to 11 per cent; a reduction on radio control and radio navigational aid equipment from 15 per cent to 12 per cent; and a reduction on polyvinyl chloride resins from 25 per cent to 21 per cent in three annual stages.
Duty reductions were also granted in the duties on fresh and frozen eels, kraft paper and paperboard and domestic electric washing machines. Statutory duties were reduced to the level of temporary reduced rates on small outboard motors, tires and tubes for
GATT-Tariff Revisions motor vehicles, unwrought magnesium, calculating machines, typewriters and cash registers, and on metal-working machine tools. The existing duty on polystyrene was bound.
Italy
The negotiations resulted in concessions by Italy covering approximately 20 per cent of Canadian exports to that country in 1955. A number of the products on which concessions were obtained have been freed from restrictions.
Italy eliminated the statutory duty of 8 per cent on salted cod, which has been admitted duty free on a temporary basis. Similarly, the duty free entry of chemical wood pulp was bound, from a previous statutory rate of 6 per cent. The 10 per cent duty on flax seed and the 3 per cent duty on crude cobalt were eliminated. Reductions were granted on planks and boards of Douglas fir from 10 per cent to 6 per cent, on outboard motors from 35 per cent to 27 per cent and 25 per cent respectively depending on their cylinder volume, and on forklift trucks from 35 per cent to 32 per cent.
Reductions to the level of the temporary duties were obtained on prepared moulding and drawing powders of polystyrene and of similar plastics; on spades, shovels, hoes and similar tools; on calculating machines, automatic electric toasters and on burners operated by gas. The statutory duty on canned salmon was reduced from 25 per cent to 14 per cent. In addition, reductions were granted on certain iron and steel items imported from countries not belonging to the European coal and steel community, including Canada, within an annual quota.
Norway
The duty-free entry granted by Norway on many important Canadian products was bound at earlier GATT negotiations. At this conference, Canada obtained new concessions on a number of products. Reductions in duty were obtained on nylon fishing nets, from 25 per cent ad valorem with a minimum of 10 kroner per kilo, to one-fifth of this level, 5 per cent with a minimum of 2 kroner per kilo; and on synthetic rubber, from 30 per cent to a maximum statutory rate of 10 per cent.
Reductions were also obtained in the duty on canned salmon, from 0-30 krone to 0-25 krone per kilogram, on cotton duck, unworked cellophane, canned peaches, and on certain machines for the paper-making industry. The duty-free entry of pneumatic spade hammers and rammers was bound, and the existing duties were bound against increase on red
4838	HOUSE OF
GATT-Tariff Revisions clover seed, patent leather, certain grades of upper leather and on fork-lift trucks.
Sweden
Sweden granted concessions on various items of interest to Canada, many of which have been freed from import restrictions. Duty-free entry was bound on natural aluminum oxide, which alone accounted for 15 per cent of all Canadian exports to Sweden in 1955. The duty on raw beaver skins was reduced from 15 per cent ad valorem plus 350 kronor per 100 kilos to 5 per cent ad valorem. The duty of 150 kronor per 100 kilos on raw muskrat, racoon and skunk skins was eliminated. Reductions were also made in the duties on phtalic acid and anhydride; developed motion picture film; dressed fur skins of beaver, chinchilla, mink and fox; motor vehicle tires; machine felt containing up to 20 per cent of continuous synthetic fibres; screw taps and dies; darning, sewing, and knitting machine needles; certain gasoline engines; radio receiving sets and factory trucks. Duty-free entry was bound also on planks and boards of Douglas fir and on nickel anodes. The existing 10 per cent duty was bound on certain machines for the papermaking industry and for mining. On whisky, the former bound rate of 200 kronor per 100 litres was reduced to the existing level of duty at 135 kronor per 100 litres.
Turkey
Commodities of interest to Canada on which the rates of duty will be reduced by Turkey include calculating machines and cash registers, from 15 per cent to 5 per cent; typewriters, from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; refrigerators and refrigerating equipment.; and office furniture of metal.
Latin America
Canada concluded new agreements at this conference with Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Successful negotiations had taken place with these countries at previous GATT conferences, and the new agreements are necessarily somewhat limited. It should be noted that these three Caribbean countries provide open dollar markets, without import or exchange restrictions affecting Canadian goods. Canada will also benefit from concessions granted by Chile and Peru in their negotiations with other countries.
Cuba
A number of useful concessions were obtained by Canada as a result of these negotiations. Duties on five commodities of interest to Canada will be reduced to the same level as the duties applicable to the United States under the preferential tariff treatment
[Stage Direction]
which Cuba grants to the United States of America exclusively. These reductions are on copper tubing or pipe, from 5-11 to 3-90 pesos per 100 kilogs; aluminum sheets, not corrugated, undulated or grooved, from 4-00 to 3 -25 pesos per 100 kilogs; phosphorus, from 5 to 3-5 centavos per kilog; linseed oil, from 50 to 40 centavos per 100 kilogs; and sewing machines, from 5 to 4 per cent ad valorem. Some of these reduced rates were previously in effect but were not bound under GATT. In addition to the above concessions, the most-favoured-nation rates on refrigerators and electric ventilators will be lowered correspondingly with reductions made in the preferential rates to the United States on these products.
Dominican Republic
A wide variety of commodities have been included among the consessions granted by the Dominican Republic. Among these the following are of interest to Canadian exporters: Aluminum ingots reduced from 10 to 8 pesos per 100 kilogs; typewriters, calculating machines and cash registers, from 20 to 18 per cent ad valorem; mimeographs, dictating machines, and addressographs, from 20 to 18 per cent ad valorem; electricity and water meters, bound duty-free; passenger car and bicycle tires, reduced from 25 to 22 per cent ad valorem; synthetic resin and other plastics in original solid state, from 15 to 13-5 centavos per kilog; plastic toys, bound against increase at 1-20 pesos per kilog.
Haiti
Canada will benefit from several new concessions supplementing those previously negotiated with Haiti at Annecy and Torquay. The duty on dried fish and shellfish other than codfish has been bound against increase at 0-33 gourde per kilog or, if higher, 20 per cent ad valorem. Other concessions of interest to Canada include: electric refrigerators and air conditioners reduced from 10 to 5 per cent ad valorem; typewriters, dictaphones and mimeographs, from 20 to 15 per cent ad valorem; cash registers and calculating machines from 20 to 15 per cent ad valorem; oat cereals reduced from 0-25 to 0-15 gourde per kilog or, if higher, from 20 to 15 per cent ad valorem; canned soups from 0-35 to 0-25 gourde per kilog or, if higher, from 20 to 15 per cent ad valorem.
Peru
A few concessions granted by Peru are of interest to Canada among which are the following: rubber water hose over 8 cms. in diameter bound against increase at 0 10 sol per kilog; water wheels and turbines, bound at 0-03 sol per kilog. There is also a customs

surtax in the Peruvian tariff applicable to all items which, in the case of the above products, is also bound against increase at 12J per cent ad valorem.
Chile
Negotiations concluded by Chile with other countries resulted in a number of concessions of which the following are of interest to Canada: leaf tobacco reduced from 6 to 4 gold pesos per kilog; cash registers and automatic vending apparatus reduced from 2-80 to 2-40 gold pesos per kilog; sodium phosphate bound against increase at 0-35 gold pesos per kilog; ferro-nickel and ferro-chrome alloys in bars, bound against increase at 0-15 gold pesos per kilog.
Japan
Canada did not negotiate with Japan at this conference, since negotiations between the two countries had taken place in 1955 at the time of Japanese accession to the GATT. However, Japan concluded new agreements with other countries and granted concessions on a number of items of interest to Canadian exporters.
Reductions in Japanese rates of duty of interest to Canada will apply to the following commodities; vegetable soups and juices, from 20 per cent to 17 per cent; synthetic resins of vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate series, from 30 per cent and 22! per cent to 20 per cent; antibiotics and preparations thereof, from 17! per cent to 17 per cent; containers of paper and cardboard excluding bags, from 15 per cent to 13 per cent; peaches and pears canned or bottled, from 30 per cent to 27 per cent; varnishes, from 22! per cent to 20 per cent; insulated cable and wire for electricity, from 20 per cent to 18 per cent.
Items on which the rate of duty will be bound against increase include:	whisky;
polyethylene; polystyrene; pressure gauges; internal combustion engines; paper and pulp mill machinery; cream separators; electric refrigerators.
United, Kingdom: Modifications in Preferences
Canada did not negotiate with the United Kingdom. However, a number of tariff preferences accorded by each country to the other will be modified to some extent as a result of agreements which Canada and the United Kingdom concluded with other countries. The changes are not significant in total and, in general, the cuts are not very deep. Some margins of preference will be narrowed and there are also instances of reductions in the preferential rates of duty. Changes in preferences in the Canadian tariff are indicated in a separate section.
GATT-Tariff Revisions
Modifications in the United Kingdom tariff of interest to Canada include the following: Printing paper, a reduction in the MFN rate of duty from 20 per cent to 16§ per cent, with imports from the commonwealth remaining duty free. Kraft paper and most machine-glazed papers, a reduction in the MFN rate from 16| per cent to 14 per cent, with imports from the commonwealth remaining duty free. On a range of miscellaneous machinery and parts, a reduction in the MFN rate from 20 per cent to 17! Per cent, with imports from the commonwealth remaining duty free. Motor vehicles and various classes of accessories and component parts, a reduction in the MFN rate from 33 J per cent to 30 per cent, and a reduction in the preferential rate accorded commonwealth products from 22% per cent to 20 per cent. Artificial silk yarn, a reduction in the MFN rate from 9d. plus 22J per cent ad valorem to 9d. plus 20 per cent, with imports from the commonwealth accorded, as formerly, a preferential rate of five-sixths of the MFN rate. Papermakers' felts containing artificial silk, a reduction in the MFN rate from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, and a reduction in the preferential rate accorded commonwealth products from 20% per cent to 12J per cent. Artificial silk dresses, a reduction in the duty applicable to all countries from 30 per cent to 27! per cent, the alternative specific rate of 6s.9d.lb. (chargeable when higher than the ad valorem rate) to be replaced by a rate of 9s.lb.
Tariff Concessions Granted by Canada
The tariff concessions made by Canada at the 1956 Geneva tariff conference cover 180 items or sub-items in the Canadian customs tariff. Of these, 115 are reductions in the present MFN tariff and 55 are bindings of the existing rates of duty, of which many had been lowered unilaterally by Canada since the last tariff conference. For five items Canada undertook not to raise duties above certain specified rates higher than those actually in effect, but which in all five cases are lower than the rates previously agreed to under the GATT. The remaining five items are reductions in the British preferential tariff, concurrent with reductions in the MFN tariff. Canada's concessions are shown in schedule V to the protocol of supplementary concessions. This schedule consists of part I covering the MFN tariff, and part II covering the preferential tariff. These concessions will not come into effect immediately, but will be implemented at appropriate times having regard to the implementation by other countries of their concessions to Canada. The
4840	HOUSE OF
GATT-Tariff Revisions Canadian concessions to each country will be brought into effect in one step.
Canada's total imports during the calendar year 1955 from all countries under the 115 items or sub-items on which the MFN tariff was reduced at Geneva amounted to $91,000,000. Canada's total imports during 1955 from all countries under the 60 items which were bound but not reduced amounted to $88,000,000.
Part II of schedule V contains five items, which provide for reductions in preferential rates of duty on certain goods on which the most favoured nation rate is also being reduced. During 1955 Canadian imports from British commonwealth countries of goods covered by these preferential reductions in part II were valued at $450,000.
The reductions in the most favoured nation tariff cover a wide range of products such as:-textile machinery, orange juice, lettuce, newsprint, shelled oysters, shrimps, beer, spectacle frames, cigars, sawmill machinery, adding machines, cash registers, road building machines, electrical precision apparatus (such as is used in oil refineries and chemical works), cameras, and tobacco pipes. Details regarding these and other important most favoured nation tariff reductions are given below.
The most favoured nation rates on certain types of machinery were reduced, but all were of a class or kind not made in Canada, namely, textile machinery, Item 413, from 5 per cent to free; leather working machinery, item 420, from 7) per cent to 5 per cent; certain road building machinery and earth moving machinery, item 422a, from 10 per cent to 7) per cent; specialized types of electrical precision apparatus, meters, gauges, etc., items ex. 445k and 445n, from 22) per cent and 15 per cent respectively, to 7) per cent.
The most favoured nation rate on newsprint, item ex. 197, was reduced from 22) per cent to free; ponderosa pine lumber and California sugarpine lumber, item ex. 505, from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; white oak lumber, item ex. 505, and Douglas fir lumber, Item ex. 505, from 10 per cent to 7) per cent.
The most favoured nation rate on orange iuice, item 152(b) was reduced from 10 per ;ent to 7) per cent; edible offal of beef and veal, item 7(b), from 1) cents per pound but not less than 7) per cent to 1 \ cents per pound but not less than 6 per cent; hay, item 69b, from $1.25 per ton to $1.06 per ton; white clover seed (both ladino and white Dutch), item ex. 71b, from 2 cents per pound to 1 cent per pound; bent grass seed, item
[Stage Direction]
72e, from 15 per cent to 7) per cent; the seasonal duty on lettuce was reduced from 1 cent per pound to 85 cents per pound; tomato paste, item 89 ex. (c), from 2 cents per pound to 1) cents per pound; eviscerated turkeys item ex. 9, from 12) per cent to 12) per cent but not less than 5 cents per pound and not more than 10 cents per pound; cigar tobacco unstemmed, item 142(b) ex. (i), from 15 cents per pound to 12) cents per pound, and cigar tobacco stemmed, item 142(b) ex. (ii), from 22) cents per pound to 20 cents per pound.
The most favoured nation rate on cobalt metal, item ex. 208t and ex. 711, was reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent; on copper beryllium alloys, dutiable under various items, were reduced to 7) per cent; manufacturers of lead, item 339, from 27) per cent to 25 per cent; coin locks of bronze, item 352c, from 35 per cent to 30 per cent; retarder for plaster, classified under item ex. 220a and item ex. 711, from 20 per cent to 10 per cent; rough building stone, item 305, from 12) per cent to 10 per cent.
The most favoured nation rate of fire engines, item 424, was reduced from 22) per cent to 20 per cent; fish hooks for non-commercial fishing, item ex. 440j, from 15 per cent to 10 per cent; open pleasure boats, item ex. 440a, from 25 per cent to 20 per cent; guns and rifles of a class or kind not made in Canada, item 441e, from 10 per cent to 7) per cent; cameras of a class or kind not made in Canada, item 462(ii) (a), from 17) per cent to 15 per cent; slide projectors, item 463, from 20 per cent to 15 per cent; spectacle frames, item 328, from 17) per cent to 15 per cent; cigars valued at more than $6 per pound, item ex. 143, from $1.75 per pound plus 15 per cent to $1.50 per pound plus 10 per cent; beer in casks, item 146, from 35 cents per gallon to 15 cents per gallon and beer in bottles, item 147, from 50 cents per gallon to 15 cents per gallon.
The most favoured nation rate on oysters, prepared or preserved, item 123 ex. (c) was reduced from 22) per cent to 15 per cent; oysters shelled and frozen, item ex. 133, from 17) per cent to free; shelled oysters in bulk and in cans, items 124, 125, 126 and 127, from various rates to free. Shrimps, presently dutiable at various rates, reduced to 10 per cent.
The most favoured nation rate on cash registers, item ex. 519(a)(2) was reduced from 25 per cent to 22) per cent; cash register parts, item 519b, from 15 per cent to 12)

per cent; adding machines, item 414d, from 17J per cent to 15 per cent; adding machine parts, item 414e, from 15 per cent to 12J per cent.
Since GATT negotiations relate only to the most favoured nation tariff, there was no occasion to negotiate rates of duty under the British preferential tariff. Of course some margins of preference in the Canadian tariff
GATT-Tariff Revisions as well as in the tariffs of other commonwealth countries were reduced in the course of negotiations with non-commonwealth countries. Of the items in which Canada reduced margins of preference those which covered the largest volume of trade were orange juice, electrical precision apparatus and textile machinery. The great bulk of Canadian imports of these products in 1955 were from non-commonwealth sources.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 8, 1956