1956-05-31

Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on May 28, be concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the orders of the day be now read.


Mr. Knowles:: Shame!


Mr. Fleming:: How many more closures?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You are in an awful hurry to bail out Trans-Canada before it is found out.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Mr. Martin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION

Mr. Fulton:: On a point of order, I submit to you, sir, that this motion made by the Prime Minister is not in order and cannot be received or put to the committee. In what I shall have to say I shall be asking hon. members of the committee to consider the position of parliament itself. We have all witnessed scenes here in the past ten days or so about which all of us must be gravely concerned. It is my earnest submission to you, sir, and through you to the committee and through the committee to the house, that the house itself, in connection with the point of order I am about to raise, should give very serious consideration to its position with respect to the procedure we are now being asked to follow and must assess the point of order I raise from the point of view of the interests of parliament itself which, I submit to you, sir, transcend the interests of party or of government and are inherent and essential to the interests of the nation itself.
My point of order is based upon standing order 33, and I shall read standing order 33 because it is necessary to consider the terms of that whole order in order to appreciate just what the Prime Minister is asking us to do and to what extent it is out of order and a contravention of our rules by which the government is bound just as much as any member or other party in the house.



CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 4-Body corporate.
Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the notice given yesterday in accordance with the provisions of standing order 33 I move:
That at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Rowe:: Why not call it one o'clock tomorrow morning?


Mr. Drew:: Dissolve parliament and really face the issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-
Standing order 33 reads as follows:
Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the house be in committee of the whole, or of supply, or of ways and means, any minister of the Crown who, standing in his place, shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be the first business of the committee, and shall not further be postponed:
Now, sir, I have not read the whole of the standing order. I have read the part of it which is applicable to the point of order I intend to raise. I wish to emphasize to you and to the committee the operative words. Since we are in committee of the whole considering a bill of seven clauses, of which we have only had three called and immediately postponed without consideration and then embarked upon the consideration of the fourth clause leaving three clauses and the title not yet having been called, I wish in that context to emphasize the operative words that the minister moves that further consideration of any clause or clauses, title or titles shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.

It is of course impossible, in my submission, to argue that you can divorce any one of those words from the others because the rule must be looked at as a whole. Therefore, in order to comply with the provisions of this rule it must be interpreted with the utmost strictness because it has a limitation on debate, a limitation on the ordinary rights of members. In order to comply, therefore, with the strict provisions of the rules you must have regard for the question of whether or not the clause or clauses, title or titles have already been postponed because the motion is that they shall not be further postponed.
The argument I have to submit to you, sir, is in three main parts. First, I wish to call to the attention of the committee and deal with the situation arising by virtue of the fact that there have been three clauses only postponed, clauses 1, 2 and 3, and that those clauses were not, in fact, considered although they were postponed and therefore it is not possible to move that further consideration be not further postponed. Second, I wish to deal with the situation arising from the fact that there are three clauses, numbers 5, 6 and 7 which have not been called and upon which, therefore, it is impossible to hold that the committee has embarked upon their consideration. Third, having made what I might call an argument based on a strict interpretation of the rules I wish to make an argument, and I appeal to you that since this is an institution in which progress cannot be made in the interests of the nation unless we proceed by common sense, I wish to appeal to you on the basis of an argument on common sense as to what we are being asked to do here today.
I would then remind you, Mr. Chairman, of something I have already brought to your attention, and that is that if Your Honour finds himself in doubt as to the ruling he should make, then it is in accordance with the precedents and propriety of our proceedings that you should refer the matter to His Honour the Speaker for advice and direction. On that point, however, I will leave the argument to be developed by others of my colleagues.
As to the first of the three branches of my argument, namely that because the three clauses, 1, 2 and 3 which have already been postponed have not been considered no matter what form or words may have been used in the motion by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I submit that we are up against the strict interpretation of the closure rule and it must be interpreted strictly. Therefore, I suggest to you that we should rule that the postponement of clauses which have not been in fact considered in an 67509-286
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation ordinary and sensible interpretation of those words cannot be made subject of a motion that their consideration be not further postponed. I say to you at the outset with respect to this particular branch of the argument, it was developed previously, quite extensively and ably by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I shall leave the further development of that argument to him and others of my colleagues in the house. This branch of my argument does come in later. I shall submit to you: On the basis of common sense, how can anyone say, you included, sir, that clauses 1, 2 and 3 have been considered in such a sense that their further consideration can be made the subject of a motion at this time? In other words, clauses which have not been considered so that the judgment of this committee might have been expressed upon it, and there has been no opportunity to express the judgment of this committee on those three clauses, cannot, in that situation, be made the subject of a motion that their further consideration be postponed. Having said that, I shall leave the details of this argument to be developed in the main by others.
May I proceed at once to the second and perhaps the main branch of my argument dealing with the situation confronting us by virtue of the fact that clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the bill have not yet been called for consideration of the committee, and therefore cannot be included within the ambit either of the notice given by the Prime Minister yesterday or of the motion made by him today that their further consideration be not further postponed. They have not been called	and they have not been considered. I am satisfied, therefore, that you would not expect me, and it is not necessary for me, to elaborate further any argument that they have not yet been called or considered.
We are left with the situation that what the Prime Minister is asking the committee to do today is to apply the closure rule to clauses which have not yet been before the committee. I say to the Prime Minister and to you, the Prime Minister particularly as a lawyer and you as chairman of this committee, the one charged with the interpretation and applications of the rules, that on the basis of the clear precedents established by this house the Prime Minister's motion falls to the ground. Let us consider the precedents which are applicable under the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, and we will find that they are against the Prime Minister by three to one. The only
<500	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation precedent that can be cited in support of the hon. gentleman's proposition is the precedent of 1932 when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was Prime Minister and invoked closure on a bill in committee. I want to make this point quite clear. I do not admit the validity of that precedent, and I shall give my reasons in the course of my further arguments.
I do not think that the government of that day was right in saying-perhaps I had better go back and say the bill contained three clauses. It had been considered for some two weeks at the resolution stage, a vast difference from the bill now before us, and it had been considered for two days in committee and when the closure motion was made only one clause had been called before the committee by the chairman.
The argument was then put forward that the discussion on clause 1 had been of a general nature and, therefore, in effect the other two clauses of the bill had been before the committee and it was a justifiable motion applicable to clauses 1, 2 and 3. As I say,
I do not accept the validity of that argument because clearly clauses 2 and 3 had not been called before the committee on that occasion.
Secondly, I submit that the point of order I am now raising was not raised in a clear manner and brought before the committee clearly for decision and, as has been said by one of my colleagues here on a previous occasion, accepted, as I understand it, by the Chair. A precedent that has not been tested is not as strong a precedent as one that has been examined, tested and approved. This is a point that was not raised and was not clearly brought before the committee and established on that occasion. It is true that one of the hon. members present in the committee did ask the chairman whether the only motion that could be made was for the further postponement of clause 1. The chairman, not in the form of a ruling, but in the form of a general observation, said in effect that he did not think that question was before him to decide or before the committee to decide. He said, the motion is that further consideration of the three clauses be not further postponed, and, after one other query from an hon member, he put the motion and it was carried.
Therefore, sir, there was no clear issue raised as to the propriety of the motion and its propriety was not tested. Therefore, I submit that this precedent, tenuous as it is, is not a precedent tested, established and embedded firmly in the practice of this house. It is the only precedent that the government can bring in, in support of its
(Mr. Fulton.]

position. There is another very important difference, even accepting the validity of this 1932 precedent as a precedent, which I question. There is, however, the clear difference between the situation then and the situation before us now on the basis of which that precedent can be clearly distinguished. That was a bill of only three clauses, and virtually the whole bill was contained in clause 1. It was a bill to continue in force the employment and farm relief act. All the provisions of the act, when clause 1 had been enacted, if it were enacted, covered the other two clauses which were entirely concerned with matters of detail. They depended upon clause 1 as a matter of course. In this case we have a bill of seven clauses. The Prime Minister himself said, as recorded at page 4365 of Hansard, that we have not yet in committee got to any one of the main operative clauses. Remember that in the case of the 1932 precedent clause 1 was the main operative clause. May I place before the committee the words of the Prime Minister as recorded at page 4365 of Hansard when he made the statement which he asked us to take seriously but which his subsequent action made known that he himself did not intend to take seriously, and I doubt indeed whether he felt for five minutes that the country would take his so-called offer seriously. This is what he said:
No, Mr. Speaker. I say that, as soon as the motion before the committee has been disposed of, debate can begin either on clause 4-
I interpolate, we were then on the motion to postpone consideration of clause 3. I continue with the Prime Minister's remarks:
-or, if hon. members wish to postpone clause 4, on clauses 5, 6 and 7, those we had thought would be the operative clauses on which it would be most interesting to have the debate develop.
By the admission of the Prime Minister himself we have not even got to the operative clause in our consideration in committee, and yet he is moving that further consideration be not further postponed on clauses that we have not even considered for one moment. There is the distinction between the 1932 precedent and this situation, if further distinction were needed. In 1932 Mr. Bennett made the argument that clause 1 embraced virtually the whole bill. That was the argument upon which he based the validity of his motion. Here the Prime Minister has admitted that the bill does not depend on clause 1, clause 2, clause 3 or even clause 4. The operative clauses, the main clauses, are 5, 6 and 7, which have not yet been before us. Therefore, I say to you, sir, the 1932 precedent is not a valid one, is not a sound one, even in the circumstances in which it

would apply; but if it were held to be sound, then it is not applicable in this situation because it is clearly distinguishable.
As I have said, the only precedents for the situation we have now with respect to closure are four, and they are three to one against the government. Let us look at the other three, the one case of 1913 and the two of 1917, the only other occasions upon which closure was applied to a bill in committee of the whole. In 1913 it was on the naval construction bill; in 1917 one case was the wartime elections act and the other case was the Canadian National Railways bill. In each one of these cases all the clauses of the bills had been called and had either been adopted by the committee or had their consideration postponed by the committee before the closure motion was introduced. Therefore, in the three cases, every clause of the bills had clearly been before the committee for consideration before the closure motion was introduced. Even if we accept the government's arguments that they were justified in postponing the consideration of clauses 1, 2 and 3 even before they had in fact been considered by the committee, their argument and their conduct last Thursday and Friday would only have been valid and have had any basis for justification if they had followed the same procedure with respect to clauses 5, 6 and 7. Therefore, their whole course of conduct in calling for the postponement of clauses 1, 2 and 3 recognized and accepted the validity of the proposition that you cannot apply closure in committee unless you have all the clauses of the bill before the committee. Otherwise, why did they go through the farce they did last Thursday and Friday of calling the clause and the Minister of Trade and Commerce moved that further consideration be postponed? Why did the minister make himself look ridiculous and make the government look ridiculous and subject parliament to ignominy and insulting procedure unless they themselves in their minds and hearts admitted at that time that the only way they could get closure applied was, in fact, if every clause had been called, brought before the committee and its postponement then moved. Therefore, their conduct establishes the validity of the argument I now make and emphasizes that the precedents of 1913 and 1917 are the precedents that should be followed in this house rather than the tenuous and shadowy substance of the precedent of 1932.
It may be, sir, that the Prime Minister will attempt to make an argument that it is not necessary for each clause to be called separately in order for it to be before the committee. He may say: The bill was before the committee for one and one-half days 67509-286i
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and, therefore, in our grace we permitted you to have a general discussion and in effect every clause has been before the committee. There is not a shadow of substance for that argument. I contend that in order for a clause of a bill to be before a committee it must be called as a separate question by the chairman. Every authority I have been able to find supports the proposition that it must be called and placed before the committee by the chairman.
May I refer you to a few of these authorities. I start first with Campion and refer you to pages 215 and 216. I do not know what edition it is but it is the one that is in the library. Here Campion is discussing the proceedings in committee on a bill and at the foot of page 215 you find the following:
The chairman calls each clause by its number and, if no amendment is offered, immediately proceeds to propose the question "That this clause stand part of the bill".
It is true, I admit, that the English procedure in committee is slightly different from ours, but Campion and May have been cited as authorities and used as a basis for ruling against us in previous arguments in committee and with respect to the point I am now making I submit the English proceedings in committee are absolutely applicable and the authority is exactly in point.
Campion continues:
On this question a debate on the provisions of the clause may take place. After it has been proposed it is no longer in order to move an amendment. As soon as the first clause is disposed of the Chairman calls the next clause and so on. Strictly, a separate question is necessary on each clause, but on uncontentious bills it is not unusual to save time by putting the question on groups of clauses.
This can hardly be described as an uncontentious bill. It is clear from this that a separate question is necessary on each clause and each clause must be called and considered separately before it can be held to have been before the committee.
Next I would give you the authority of May, fifteenth edition, at pages 526 and 527. At page 526, again in a passage discussing proceedings in committee of the whole House of Commons, we find the following:
Order in which bill is considered.
The text of a bill is considered in committee in the following order:
(1)	Clauses.
(2)	New Clauses.
(3)	Schedules.
(4)	New Schedules.
(5)	Preamble (if any).
(6)	Title (if amendment thereto is required).
Clearly, sir, you must call the clauses separately and you must call the clauses separately before they are before the committee.
4502	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Furthermore, at page 527 of May, you find the passage which has been quoted to us before which says:
The calling of a clause by the chairman brings it under the consideration of the committee, but does not entitle a member to speak generally upon the clause-
And so on.
It is clear that you, sir, have to call the clauses before they can be under the consideration of the committee, and remember, the words of the closure rule are "postpone the further consideration of these clauses".
; Then coming to a Canadian authority, I refer you to Bourinot at pages 521 and 522:
The preamble is also postponed in both houses until after the consideration of the clauses. The bill is then considered clause by clause. The chairman usually calls out the number of each clause, and reads the marginal note, but he should give the clause at length when it is demanded by the committee, He will then put the question, "shall the clause be adopted," or "stand part of the bill". Each clause is a distinct question, and must be separately discussed.
There is no question on the basis of the authorities, both English and Canadian, that clauses must be called and put before the committee by the chairman before it is possible to argue that in fact they have been before us for consideration.
Now, as to the basis of what was done in this house and the authorities applicable here, I have already referred to the one case in 1913 and the two in 1917. I would like to refer you, sir, to the statements made by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in the year 1913 when the closure motion was exhaustively discussed in this house. To Mr. Meighen has sometimes been attributed the authorship of the closure rule. Whether or not that is so I do not know but I have noticed that on one occasion he denied it. However, it is universally admitted that he clearly understood its application, he was a sound parliamentarian, he knew how to apply it, and he knew all the formalities that had to be observed in its application.
We find in column 9359 of Hansard for the session of 1912-13 the following statement from Mr. Meighen. When Mr. Meighen was discussing this very point of order he said:
. . . there Is really no such thing as adjourning a debate in committee: it is the consideration that must be postponed in committee, as he will find in May.
Then he went on to discuss the basis of the closure rule and said as follows;
. . . the very basis of these new rules is that there shall hereafter be an order of consideration in committee, and that a bill shall be considered after this, clause by clause. That is the underlying principle of the new rules. Whether there has been an order of consideration in committee or not, there must be hereafter, in order to make the new rules intelligible.


We have not had clauses 5, 6 or 7 before us for consideration and yet the Prime Minister is trying to make this motion apply to the whole bill and all the clauses in committee.
Again Mr. Meighen said, as reported in columns 7535 and 7536 of Hansard for 1912-13, when dealing with this subject-here is the question. I will read the question and the answer in extenso:


Mr. German:: Could they not give notice as to the w'hole bill and stop the discussion on every clause?
Which is what the government is trying to do here.


Mr.   Meighen@: This is what can be done: clause
2	is under discussion, say for two weeks or three weeks or five weeks-
And I pause there to say how very different from what we have had here; clauses 1, 2 and
3	under discussion for one day; clauses 5, 6 and 7 not even called; clause 4, for a day and a half-but Mr. Meighen went on:
. . . for two weeks, or three weeks or five weeks, as would suit hon. gentlemen opposite; clause 2 is under discussion and the motion to postpone the consideration of that clause is made. Then it would be in order I would think, for the committee to pass to clause 3, and clause 3 would then have to be discussed and a separate motion would have to be made as to clause 3.
Then I go down a little further:
A motion is made that consideration be postponed on one clause; then, after the other clause has been discussed, another motion is made, of course all within the responsibility of the government, that the consideration of that be postponed. Then notice is given that the clauses so postponed be on a certain day not further postponed. That is to say, notice is given that a motion will be made on some subsequent date stated, that the consideration of these clauses, so postponed, be not again postponed, and these clauses then must be taken up on that day.
The motion is clearly applicable only to the clauses that have been postponed.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. I permitted him to complete his quotations but he has exceeded his 30 minutes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, do you rule that in committee on a point of order there is a time limit fo 30 minutes?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Yes. My recollection is that this matter came up about a week ago. I find that the standing order says that no member except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than 30 minutes at any time in any committee of the whole house. I know of nothing to the contrary and I rule that that applies to any member, even though he be arguing a point of order.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we have all listened with much interest to the argument which has just been submitted by the hon. member for Kamloops upon the proper application of standing order 33. I think that it is hardly possible to discuss the technical points he has raised without first considering what is the purpose of this standing order. Standing order 33, as I indicated yesterday before giving notice of this motion for today, I think was designed to enable every member on both sides of the house to express his opinion on a measure by his vote in time to make that decision effective.


George Alexander Drew: On every section.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec Easl: On every section. Even under closure that is what is required. Some form of closure has been found to be necessary in all parliaments and in 1912 it was found to be necessary here. Although the rules have been revised from time to time it has been found desirable to retain that standing order in the form in which it was first adopted.
The need for a provision similar to that provided by standing order 33 was expressed in words which I feel should commend themselves to all hon. members on both sides of the house. I should like to read what Mr. Attlee said in 1945 shortly after he became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and I quote:
I have sat too long on the opposition benches not to be sensitive of the rights of the opposition and of the rights of private members. It is the right and duty of the opposition to criticize the administration and to oppose and seek to amend the legislation of the government, but it is nonetheless the right and duty of the government to govern and to pass into law the program which it has been elected to carry out. The successful working of our parliamentary institutions depends on harmonizing these conflicting rights and duties. It will be the object of the government to preserve the rights of minorities as an essential feature of democracy while, at the same time, ensuring that democratic institutions are not wrecked by a failure to carry out and implement the will of the majority.
That is a fair statement of what is endeavoured to be achieved by the enactment of standing order 33. The hon. gentleman has said that there are four precedents, but there are three that were similar in form for the application of standing order 33 on a bill in committee of the whole. One was followed in all cases but the more recent case of 1932. The government would have preferred to have followed the earlier precedents because their application would have given the committee, if hon. gentlemen so desired, an opportunity before the rule was suggested, for a discussion of each clause separately. As the hon. member has clearly indicated, to follow the earlier
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation precedents it is necessary to have each clause postponed once before the motion for the application of standing order 33 is made.
We believe that clauses 5, 6 and 7 are the really important clauses of the bill, the other four clauses being largely formal. We intended on Wednesday last to move the early postponement of the first four clauses so that debate could be focussed on clause 4 and the subsequent clauses before going back to the earlier ones. Those clauses contained the purposes for which the corporation was being set up and if those purposes were not acceptable and were not provided for there was no point in having the other clauses considered or discussed because they would have provided merely an empty shell.
As you will recall, the order of the house to proceed to the consideration of this bill in committee on Wednesday last was frustrated throughout the whole sitting of Wednesday. The house finally got into committee on Thursday and the government undertook to have the early clauses of the bill postponed after a brief explanation in order to facilitate the immediate consideration of the really important operative clauses.
Once again a concerted effort was made by hon. gentlemen opposite to prevent any progress being made. On Thursday evening when the Minister of Finance, as leader of the house, rose on a point of order to explain the procedure being followed by the government, hon. gentlemen opposite, who had been professing to uphold the rights of members to speak, were not willing to listen to the explanations of the leader of the house and frustrated those explanations by raising further technicalities.


John George Diefenbaker: Are the rights of parliament a technicality?
* ,7	7

 ,UUCDec r.asn: jno, the
rights of parliament are not technicalities. There was a formal objection raised, not in respect to the rights of parliament but in respect to the rights of the leader of the house to exercise what is usually regarded as one of his rights as a member of the nouse.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was not a right; he asked for an indulgence.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps it is that in the estimation of hon. gentlemen opposite-	'


George Alexander Drew: It is in the estimation of anybody with any sense.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -when an hon. member of this house is prevented from participating in the discussion of a question before the house.
4504	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Donald Methuen Fleming: He asked for indulgence to be heard.


George Alexander Drew: He had no right to be heard at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The ruling had been made that it could not be debated.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This was before the ruling had been made; this was on a point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Chair had ruled that the motion was not debatable and nobody could speak on the motion. He asked the indulgence to speak.


William Earl Rowe: Indulgence for one side and no indulgence for the other. That is this parliament.


Mr. Si. Laurent (Quebec Easl):: The following day, as hon. members will remember, was another very frustrating day and the government came to the conclusion that the only effective course open to it was to follow the precedent of 1932 which was the most recent and seemed to us the most pertinent case in which standing order 33 had been applied. At that time it was standing order 39 but it was readopted during the course of last session in its present form. Lawyers admit that it is a principle that when a statute is being consolidated and the language which has been acted upon has been construed, that construction, if it is not acceptable, is avoided by making some change in the form of the rule.
There was no change made in the form of this rule. On that occasion a motion similar to the motion I have proposed was made by Mr. Bennett, who was then Prime Minister and whom I would expect hon. gentlemen of the official opposition would accept as one having great authority, both as a lawyer, and as one having proper respect for the rights of parliament. But what is even more important to us on this side of the house is that when points of order similar to those suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops were raised by the leader of the U.F.A. party, Mr. Gardiner, Mr. King, to whom gentlemen opposite have been making very frequent references, especially on these questions of closure, did not see fit to join in attempting to support those points of order, and the house adopted the motion submitted by Mr. Bennett. It seemed to us that that was the most recent precedent and that it was a valid precedent upon which we could rely.


John George Diefenbaker: Had not consideration
been given for several days to the matter before closure was adopted?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There had been several days' consideration given to a resolution that was on the order paper, because it was argued very strenuously during many days that that resolution would not lead to any effective legislation.


John George Diefenbaker: Argued for many days?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Finally
there was a notice of closure made to bring that resolution to a vote, and hon. gentlemen will remember that at that time the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into the committee of the whole was a debatable motion. As soon as that motion was adopted, and the form of resolution, about which they had been complaining as not apt to lead to any effective legislation, was changed and something quite different was substituted for it-when that was done, their objection having been met, the resolution was adopted-at an hour that very closely resembled one that we witnessed on that clock not so very long ago, 4.42 a.m., and the bill was read a first time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The clock had better be kept wound up, too.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Then a bill that was quite different from that which had been foreshadowed in the resolution was put before the house. Yes, the resolution provided for a bill to amend chapter 58 in order to replace the word "March" by the word "May". Whilst the resolution that was finally adopted provided for a bill which became the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, which contained three clauses-


John George Diefenbaker: After many days.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -that could become operative. That bill got its second reading on division and went into committee. I am sure the hon. gentleman has read- perhaps more than once, as I have done- the whole debate that took place there.


John George Diefenbaker: I have also counted the
days.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not
count the days, because the first notice for closure was made on March 23, at the time the house was rising for the Easter recess, and the house did not meet again until March 29, and it was on March 29, 30 and 31 that the proceedings on the bill were discussed and that on a closure motion they were disposed of. That is what occurred at that time.
There can be no question that no clause of that bill had been referred to the committee. The hon. gentleman had submitted, in support of his point of order, that before the clauses are before the committee they have to be individually called. They certainly

have to be individually called before they are passed by the committee, and closure does not bring about the passage of any one of those clauses. I think that there was no objection raised at the time that the putting of the three clauses in one motion was not a procedure that would establish a precedent, but I submit to you, sir, that when we have here a precedent set by the presence and discussion of the matter by as eminent parliamentarians as Mr. Bennett and Mr. King, we are entitled to regard it as a valid precedent and we are entitled to ask that it be applied to future cases.
Now, it has been stated that there was not even technical consideration of clauses 1, 2 and 3. On each of those clauses there has been a reference to the house, and the house has by its vote asserted that they had been considered in such a manner as to justify-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If you will refer to the Journals, you will see that that is so in fact. As far as the operative clauses are concerned, of course, we shall admit that there were not many gentlemen on the other side of the house who have deigned to discuss any clause of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Nobody has been allowed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: They have preferred to concentrate upon their discussions of the procedure that was being recommended to the house by the government. But all those who have, even in discussing the procedure, referred to the bill have referred to the purposes of the crown corporation, to the method of financing the crown corporation, to the loan the crown corporation might make to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, and those are the purposes of clauses 5, 6 and 7, which have not been specifically called for the consideration of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: We have not been able to get any answers at all. You have been as silent as the tomb.


William Earl Rowe: What is the load factor on the steamroller?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The load factor in the house has been 100 per cent.


George Alexander Drew: One hundred per cent tyranny.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know that we advance the business that is before the committee at this time, or even advance the respect each one of us has for parliamentary institutions, by the use of violent language.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Rowe: There are not many left.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are methods by which one's opinions about the procedure that is being followed can be
expressed-


John George Diefenbaker: Why don't you follow
that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -without reverting to the kind of language we have heard, I think, all too frequently in the course of this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We realize the responsibility we are taking in doing our best to bring this matter to a division where all members of the house will have, and be able to exercise, their right to express by their votes their opinions upon the measure.


William Earl Rowe: Just by their votes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We do not
dispute the rights of hon. members to try to persuade. We do not even dispute the propriety of the statement made again yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar in which he said, as found at page 4465 of Hansard:
.1 believe that, if one feels as strongly as I do that this is not in the best interests of the country, anything I can do to stop this going through, under proper parliamentary procedure, I am right in undertaking.


William Earl Rowe: Is that not all right?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We do not
dispute that-


John George Diefenbaker: Just deny it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -but we do
think that the opposition should not question the right of the government, feeling as strongly as we do that this is in the interests of the country, to do everything we can-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -under proper parliamentary procedure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: *-to give every hon. member the opportunity to vote on this measure.


William Earl Rowe: You will let us vote on it, will
you?


Mr. Sinclair:: If you are here.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We do think that the precedent set in the time of Mr. Bennett and Mr. King as to the manner of applying properly this closure rule is a valid precedent and one we are entitled to rely upon.
4506	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


William Earl Rowe: They never closed it like this.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. gentleman-


William Earl Rowe: I was here. You were not.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -is relying upon his memory as to what took place at that time. Many of us have been reading the official reports of what took place at that time, and there the situation is on all fours with the present situation-


An hon. Member:: No.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -subject only to the exception that there are seven clauses here while there were only three in that case. But there is a title here as there was in the other case. There are clauses here that have not been individually called as there were clauses in the former case that had not been individually called.


William Earl Rowe: The first one was called.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I do not know that there is any very special difference arising out of the fact that the first one was called.


William Earl Rowe: There certainly is.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the argument submitted has any validity at all it has as great validity with respect to any one of the clauses as it has with respect to the first clause.


William Earl Rowe: We understand why you did not call it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I do not know what the hon. gentleman has in his mind in saying that we did not call it. I have said we did call it and we moved that its further consideration be postponed because we wanted to get as soon as possible to what was more than the shell so that those hon. members who really did want to discuss the purposes, the method of financing and the powers of this crown corporation could have an early opportunity of doing so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Your solicitude is most touching. You did not want a general discussion and the right to ask questions on clause 1. That is what you wanted to avoid.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Has there been any objection raised from this side of the house to the general discussion that has been taking place on the part of those who wanted to discuss the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Scores of questions that have been asked remain unanswered.


James Sinclair: Martyred St. Donald.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. gentleman might indicate what are those questions that have been unanswered. There were some questions submitted the other evening in a quite amusing speech by the hon. member for Peel.


William Earl Rowe: None of them answered either.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think if the hon. gentleman will read the report of the questions asked by the hon. member for Peel he will realize that if all those matters had to be ascertained in advance this country would not have reached the stage it has reached in its development at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Some persons have some faith in the, future of this country, the kind of faith that Sir John A. Macdonald and his associates had when they attempted to build a railway right across the country.


William Earl Rowe: He would have been ashamed of you today.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well-


William Earl Rowe: So would Sir Wilfrid.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -I do not
know about that. That is the hon. gentleman's opinion. I have my opinion about the propriety of our conduct and I will be prepared to defend that conduct in every quarter where it may be challenged.


William Earl Rowe: Let us go to the country and ask the people.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We will be going to the country in due course-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -and I am
prepared to meet such criticism as is being offered at the present time. The hon. gentleman says: Why not go now? Well, we have asserted and we firmly believe that it is in the interests of the country to get this project started this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am wandering from the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry and I do apologize. I have submitted to you that we are proceeding upon a valid precedent that is applicable to the present situation and that on the strength of that precedent you should not entertain the point of order that has been submitted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the contention that the Prime Minister's motion is out of order. Indeed, in doing so

I am pressing the point of order notice of which I gave yesterday just after the Prime Minister indicated that he would move this motion of closure today.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, may I deal with what the Prime Minister has said. Frankly, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman realizes the full implications of what he has told this House of Commons. Although I tried to take down his words I may not have them exactly but I am sure I have their import. He said to us that the government would have preferred to follow the earlier precedents because they would have made possible a more complete discussion of the individual clauses. Having said that, he then recited what he referred to as the obstruction with which the government was met on the floor of the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Frustration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, I am told that the word was "frustration" rather than "obstruction". Does the right hon. gentleman realize what he is saying? He is telling the House of Commons that it was the government's preference to follow the correct precedents, to follow the ones that can stand up, but because they were frustrated by the bad boys of the opposition, because their timetable was upset, they changed their minds and decided to follow a bad precedent. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am shocked-


An hon. Member:: Who cares?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -at a great lawyer like the Prime Minister telling us that that is the kind of leadership he is giving his party in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Good leadership.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister told us that Mr. Bennett's precedent was that of a constitutional lawyer and a man versed in parliamentary procedure. That is not usually the kind of compliment the Liberals pay Mr. Bennett. Since happily I belong to neither of the old parties I can speak the truth about what Mr. Bennett did in 1932. I think he perpetrated a fraud on the House of Commons-


Walter Edward Harris: Careful, now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -when he moved closure as he did before clauses 2 and 3 had been called at all. The Prime Minister says today that Mr. King registered no objection, that the only objection was raised by Mr. Gardiner who was a member of the U.F.A. I think it is very clear from a reading of the debate that at that point there was a bit of play between the two sides. It almost looks to
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation me as though Mr. King wanted the government of the day to impose closure, for once closure had been imposed the Liberals kept up the debate for only a very short time. There was not a great deal of point in making a formal protest and appealing the ruling, but I do ask the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister who says that Mr. King did not object to what went on on that occasion, to note that on pages 1610 and 1611 of Hansard for April 1, 1932, Mr. King did have something to say about what was happening at that time. The closure motion had been moved on the same day, as reported on page 1609. On the very next page, Mr. King said this:
-the Prime Minister comes along in the first minute of proceedings in committee today and applies closure, affecting all three sections of the bill, though as you, yourself, Mr. Chairman, well know, even the first section has not yet been passed. I quote from yesterday's proceedings at page 1557 of Hansard as follows:
"The Chairman (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):
I would ask the hon. gentleman, who knows the rules, to observe them. We are discussing section
1	of this bill."
As you yourself have said, Mr. Chairman, section 1 of the bill is the only section that has been discussed, yet by the most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government is capable, we are being prevented from discussing sections
2	and 3 of the measure and discussing at any further length the first section.
The Prime Minister says Mr. King made no objection. There is his objection, over on the next page, that this was the most coercive and arbitrary act of which a government is capable. Later, on third reading of that bill on the same day, as recorded on page 1615 of Hansard, and I admit this refers to the whole proceedings which Mr. Bennett had employed in connection with that legislation but it included what had happened that day, Mr. King said this:
I can only express the hope that some of the rulings and decisions may never be cited as precedents by any subsequent parliament in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I continue:
I believe the members of the ministry will themselves be the first to blush when, in calmer moments, they review what the records disclose of the means which were taken to bring into being this particular measure.
I note that the hon. member for Kamloops, although he is neither a minister nor was he a member of that cabinet, is blushing.


Mr. McCann:: It is the colour of his hair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister stands up today, a great lawyer and a great defender of the rights of parliament, and says to us: "We would much rather have followed the earlier precedent, the correct ones, the ones
4508	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation that stand up, but we were frustrated by these bad boys on the opposition side of the house so we have fallen back on Mr. Bennett's precedent." He says that, despite the fact that Mr. King, who, the Prime Minister says, did not say anything, said within the next two or three pages he hoped no future parliament would rely on the precedents that had been established in the course of getting that legislation through the House of Commons.
I am not going to take a great deal of time, Mr. Chairman, because I am limited to a half hour, in getting involved in the intricacies of standing order 33 which is difficult to discuss without getting mixed up in double negatives and further this and further that. Even so, if one takes the time to look at it carefully I say it is clear that the kind of motion that the Prime Minister can make under standing order 33 in committee of the whole is one that falls into two parts. The first part is that he must move that further consideration of certain clauses be the first business today. The Prime Minister, under that part of the standing order 33 has sought to move that further consideration of clauses 5, 6 and 7 be the first business today. I am omitting any reference to clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 because I am not going to get involved in confusing technicalities about those clauses, even though I do not think what was done with regard to them was proper. However, no one can deny that clauses 5, 6 and 7 have not been called, have not been discussed or considered and have not been before the committee. How then can the Prime Minister stand up today and move a motion that the further consideration of clauses 5, 6 and 7 be the first business of this committee today? It is utterly unthinkable. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that though by relying on a technicality you could accept the first part of the Prime Minister's motion, the part with respect to clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, you cannot possibly accept the part that asks that the further consideration of clauses 5, 6 and 7 and the title be the first business today.
The hon. member for Kamloops has developed it so I will not go into it, but the second part of standing order 33 permits a motion saying that consideration be not further postponed. Obviously if we have not had previous postponements of clauses 5, 6 and 7 there cannot be a motion that consideration be not further postponed. It is crystal clear from the wording of standing order 33 and it is crystal clear what happened in 1932, that bad precedent on which the Prime Minister is trying to rely today, and crystal clear from the opposition Mr. 

King registered to it which the Prime Minister did not bother to tell us about, that the action he is taking today is completely out of order.
I may say, Mr. Chairman, that yesterday we did not know what was going to happen when the house met at 2.30. It was one of those rare occasions when there had been a Liberal caucus from which there had been no leaks. We did not know what was going to happen. I confess if there was a look of amazement on my face which the Minister of Finance and others may have seen, I was shocked when the Prime Minister gave notice of a motion which was so completely out of order. I am glad the Prime Minister got into this debate on a point of order, but I wish he would recall the stand he took on an equally difficult matter back in 1946. I am not going to read any more from what Laurier or Lapointe or Mackenzie King said, because those great Liberals do not seem to move the Prime Minister. Rather I intend to read St. Laurent to the Prime Minister.
On June 18, 1946, the Prime Minister was asked a difficult question. He made an answer which I still remember because to me it was one of those classics that sometimes reach the pages of Hansard. It took courage, honesty and integrity to make it, and he made it well. He had been asked by the late Arthur Smith, in a discussion on redistribution which got over into a discussion of the British North America Act, whether or not section 133 of the British North America Act, relating to the status of the French and English languages, could be amended without the consent of the provincial legislatures. One could hardly imagine a more difficult question to be put to the present Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Justice. This was his courageous reply in terms which, I say, represent a classic on the pages of Hansard. On page 2621 of Hansard for that date, I find this:
Can that be dealt with without the consent of the provincial legislatures? Legally I say it can. The situation appears to me to be this. There are persons and nations who reach a high estate in the affairs of men, and the high estate they reach imposes upon them high obligations. There was no obligation on the Tribune Festus to say to King Agrippa that he could not deliver Paul to the Jews when they requested that he be put to death. It occurs to one, however, that they also had reached a high estate, which imposes a corresponding obligation. I copied out of the Bible on the table of this house, from the Acts, the quite natural statement of Festus:
"It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him."

There was no statute; there was no law which required that this be done; but there was the concept in the Roman conscience that it was the proper thing to do.
Then, after reciting one or two sad instances in the history of this half of the North American continent when there were certain unfortunate developments regarding the language question, the Prime Minister concluded his statement with these words:
If it is fair; if it is just; if it is proper according to the standards of human decency, it will be done; if it is unfair; if it is unjust; if it is improper, all members of this house will say, "It is not our manner to do such things."
The Prime Minister has it in his power to put this motion and if you, sir, do, as I feel you should, rule it out of order, he has the power to challenge that ruling, marshall a majority and win a verdict in favour of this improper motion. He can do it; he has the power; he has the majority behind him, out of whose souls all Liberalism seems to have gone. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, despite the obvious fact that this is a clear violation of standing order 33; that it is based on a bad precedent which Mr. King criticized and abhorred, nevertheless, he can do it; he has the power and the majority. But I did not think it was his manner to do such a thing.
The hon. member for Kamloops has already referred to the clear-cut statement that was made by Mr. Meighen in 1913 when the Conservatives were putting the closure rule on the books of this House of Commons. I will not take the time to read the particular passages he read, but I will read another one, which is in column 7537 of Hansard of April 10, 1913. It is admitted that Mr. Meighen had something to do with the drafting of the closure rule. After the explanation that he had given had been questioned by some of the Liberals who did not quite understand it, Mr. Meighen sought again to explain it. This is what he said:


Mr.   Meighen@: Yes. Nothing more, however, is done at that time and they pass to clause 3. That is the next thing to do, without a doubt. Clause 3 then becomes the subject of discussion in the committee. Clause 3 is under consideration and the committee discusses it also for a time, and the government takes the responsibility for the length of that time.
Then, Mr. Meighen goes on and moves in his explanation from clause 3 to clauses 4 and 5, and so on, and sums it all up in these words:
A debate has taken place successively on each clause and then when we have got all through the bill and all has been debated clause by clause, the government, or a member of the government, may give notice that he will move on a certain day that these clauses, all of them, be the first business of that committee and be not further postponed, and then all the clauses must be taken up on that last day and concluded by two o'clock. 2 think that is absolutely clear.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
The only change, of course, is that now "two o'clock" would have to read "one o'clock". Mr. Meighen, who is credited with being one of the draftsmen of the closure rule, made it crystal clear that the only time you can move a motion such as the Prime Minister sought improperly to move today is after all of the clauses successively, one by one, each and all of them, have been discussed. I am sure the Prime Minister has read this, as I have read it. I am sure he understands it just as I understand it, but I confess again that I am shocked that he flies in the face of it, as he has done today.
The hon. member for Kamloops has indicated that there is the one terribly bad precedent that Mr. Bennett perpetrated against this house in 1932; but there are three precedents the other way. There was one in 1913 and two in 1917. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in at least two of these cases the issue was far more contentious in parliament than is even the issue that is before us at the present time. Remember that on each of those occasions it was the Conservatives who were in power, and the Liberals like to think that the Conservatives were a little dictatorial, a little high-handed. But I ask the Prime Minister to go back and do some more homework on those precedents and admit to us, as he should, that on both of those occasions the House of Commons painfully, laboriously, at the risk of taking a great deal of time, went through and considered every clause in those bills before the government of the day sought to move closure. In fact, on one occasion there was even a discussion of a couple of paragraphs on the title so that the rule would be met completely.
In the case of the naval aid bill in 1913- hon. members can find this in volume V- after considerable discussion clause 1 was carried. Clause 2 was discussed for a considerable time and then was postponed, as recorded in column 9276. Clause 3 was moved in that column and postponed in column 9339. Clause 4 was moved on that page and not postponed until column 9348. I could go on right down to clause 6. It was only after all of the clauses had had some discussion in the committee-I am not confusing the issue by pointing out the kind of so-called discussion we had on clauses 1, 2 or 3; I am letting that go because the issue about clauses 5, 6 and 7 is so much more important, and I am sure the chairman realizes that-it was only after there had been consideration and discussion recorded in Hansard and motions carried under protest and by votes and divisions, and so on, that the government of the day sought to move closure.
4510	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In 1917 there were two instances. The first was the bill having to do with the Canadian Northern Railway, which had four clauses and a title. I have in my hand the page numbers on which those various clauses were called and postponed. Clause 1 was postponed on page 4990; clause 2 was called on that page but did not get postponed until page 4996, and so on. As I say, I have all the informa tion, but the point I am making is crystal clear. I have left nothing out. It is crystal clear that before the closure motion was moved all of the clauses had been considered by the committee.
Then, Mr. Chairman, in 1917 there was that extremely contentious measure, the wartime elections act. What historic memories, what a terrific battle it brings back, and yet the House of Commons, painfully, laboriously, went through the task of seeing to it that every clause, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the schedule, was considered before any attempt was made to move the closure. In fact, on that point, since I am rushing along and not putting all the figures on, may I say that on pages 5701 and 5702 Mr. Meighen said, in reply to a question:
I do not know what the arrangement is, but I want to remind the hon. gentleman who is leading the opposition that all the clauses can be considered now and the notice given. I do not think the notice need apply to any particular day. as long as it is given at a previous sitting.
That statement of Mr. Meighen means that the notice of closure was given after all the five clauses and the schedule of the wartime elections act had been considered.
I am not a lawyer, Mr. Chairman; the Prime Minister is; but for the life of me I cannot see how he can stand up as leader of this House of Commons and ask us to rely on that detestable precedent of 1932, which the hon. member for Kamloops at least goes so far as to call invalid, and which Mr. King criticized so strongly. Yet he stands here and asks the house to fall back on that when we have these three clear-cut precedents in which Mr. Borden and Mr. Meighen, who were the draftsmen of closure, followed the rule to the limit. I call upon the Prime Minister to read again what he said to us in 1946 when he quoted scripture to us as well. I say to him, he can do these things; he has the power; he has the majority, but I did not think it was his manner to do such a thing.
I also point out, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to the statement the Prime Minister made today to the effect that the government would rather have followed the earlier, the better, precedent, it is also a matter of fact that the government started out to do it
IMr. Knowles.]

that way. Whatever explanation the government may now give about the frustration ir experienced at our hands from this side, the fact of the matter is that last Thursday the Minister of Trade and Commerce sought to move to postpone clause 1, and then to postpone clause 2, and so on. There is no doubt what they were trying to do. They were trying to abide by the rule; they were trying to do it the right way. They were trying to do it the way the Prime Minister preferred them to do it. It was only when it became inconvenient to do it the right way that the government said, "Well, it looks as though we will have to pull Mr. Bennett out of the shadows and deify that precedent as something we can fall back on," despite what Mr. King said about the whole proceeding in 1932. As I say, the government started out in this instance to follow the rule as it is set out in standing order 33. They set out to follow the practice outlined clearly by Mr. Meighen back in 1913. They set out clearly to follow the precedent of 1913 and the two in 1917 but faced with frustration, faced with the fact that it was going to be difficult and inconvenient, it was decided that the rule book could be thrown in the Ottawa river.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why do you say, "inconvenient"? You made it impossible to discuss.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: It is not
impossible to obey the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare suggests that we have made it impossible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: To discuss.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Without going into the question of whether or not we made it impossible I say to you sir, and I say to the government, no matter what road block or difficulty the opposition puts in the road of the government that does not give the government the right to break the rules. It does not give even the Prime Minister the right to urge this house to accept as in order a motion which I am sure he knows in his heart of hearts is not in keeping with the definition of the rules spelled out by Mr. Meighen, or in keeping with the three clear-cut, well-established precedents that were worked out in 1913 and in 1917.
I would say to the government that back in 1913 when this matter was being discussed there was a Liberal of that day who later became a unionist-and I guess that means he was eventually a Tory. I refer to Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Guthrie was a pretty critical Liberal in 1913 and he did not like the closure rule, nor did his leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. At that time he tried to build up a case to the effect that it might

be possible under this closure rule to avoid any discussion from the opposition side of the house at all. Sir Robert Borden said it was an absurd position but Mr. Guthrie, a Liberal at the time, worked it out by saying that we might be met by:
... a minister disposed to go the limit-
How little Mr. Guthrie realized he was prophesying the coming of a certain minister. He suggested that a minister might go the limit:
-and the committee stage can be passed without a syllable being uttered on the opposition side in the way of comment on the bill.
I am trying to find where he spelled it out that the committee could do it in committee of the whole in a minute of time going from one resolution to the next. Mr. Meighen replied to Mr. Guthrie and these are his words as recorded in column 8258 of Hansard of April 22, 1913:
Does the hon. member really seriously say that a minister moving the second reading of a bill, who during the course of his speech moves the adjournment, is moving that adjournment after debate? Is that his position?
Mr. Guthrie said yes and Mr. Meighen's reply was:
I will leave the hon. member to rest in that absurd position.
I am speaking quickly, and I am not able to pick it up readily but it is here, the corresponding discussion of the situation in committee where Mr. Guthrie suggested that the government might abuse this rule by having the committee go from one clause to another without any discussion.


William Earl Rowe: Exactly what they have done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Meighen, Mr. Borden and others who were piloting the closure rule through the committee said that was impossible and that it would not be debate, that it would not be consideration, that under standing order 33 it would not be possible for one person only to speak and move the adjournment or postponement at the end of a speech.


William Earl Rowe: They never dreamed of 1956.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How little Mr. Guthrie
realized, when he used those words that there might some day be a minister prepared to go the limit, but he was uttering a prophecy that has been fulfilled in our day.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, 1 urge you to consider this matter very seriously as I know you are and have been since you realized it might come up. There have been occasions in this house-I remember one particularly in 1948 when a predecessor of yours stood firm despite an appeal from the government side that a ruling be made the government's
31, 1956	4511
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation way. I refer to the time when Mr. Golding, who was in the chair, was faced with our contention that a ruling he made was correct whereas Mr. Abbott challenged that ruling and eventually appealed it to the house. This is even more serious than that. The whole question of the rights of parliament, despite what the Prime Minister tries to say, is at stake; not just our right to speak but the practice of the majority by its superior numbers in declaring that black is white. It can, by sheer weight of numbers, be done, and I am still dumbfounded that the minister of justice in 1948 who said it was not our manner to do such things-


Donald Methuen Fleming: 1946.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, June 18, 1946

is today asking this house to take on something which, it is clear to everyone, is completely out of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: How the mighty have fallen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I realize my time has expired and with one sentence I will sit down. Another great Liberal, Frank Oliver-I call the attention of the hon. member for Athabaska to this because he is a great devotee of his-said that closure is not a blow at the opposition of the house, it is a blow at the rights of the Canadian people. When closure is imposed in this way, by the moving of a motion that is out of order-


Some hon. Members:: Time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: -it is a blow that strikes at the very heart of our democratic system.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Before the hon. member for Prince Albert speaks I had intended to state this to the committee. I think I am in a position to make the very difficult ruling which it is my duty to make. I am going to hear the hon. member for Prince Albert but I am going to request him to advise me of new material. The material that has already been submitted by the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Prime Minister I have before me.
I am also going to indicate that perhaps I have been too lenient with hon. members on both sides of the house this afternoon in permitting what should be advice to the Speaker or the chairman on a matter of order to become a debate on the advisability of whether or not the motion should be passed, a matter which is not debatable.
Perhaps in order that I should make it clear why I say this to the committee I might point out that there is no debate on a point
4512	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation of order in that sense. The chairman takes the responsibility of permitting or asking, as the case may be, members of the house to assist him with their advice and it is his-that is, it will be my-responsibility to decide when that stage has passed. The hon. member for Prince Albert.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I start by reverting to the motion made by the Prime Minister, that at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298 the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the title of the said bill and any amendments proposed thereto shall be the first business of this committee and shall not be further postponed.
Now, sir, I listened to the Prime Minister today with all the interest which the prestige of the position he occupies demands, and I feel that in the course of his argument he realized how specious that argument was when he endeavoured to show that further consideration of clauses 5, 6 and 7 could take place when they had never been considered.
I ask the Prime Minister, through you, not believing at this time that there is any prospect of any change in his view, nor am I any more hopeful than if a seed were dropped on a glacier that it would become productive, but I do make this appeal on the basis of all the authority of British tradition. All the authority of British tradition is that this has never been done in a British parliament except in 1932, and then how different the matter was to the one now before this committee.
I am no authority on the rules, and I say that to begin with, but I have gone through all the British Hansards and gathered all the instances in the last 100 years. I have four of them here but I am not going into the details. I shall simply place them before the committee. To begin with, I say that never in all British history under a parliamentary system have the rules been juggled as they have in this case or have the rules been changed as it were between innings.
I go back nearly 60 years and start with the Ireland bill in 1901; then there was the education local authority bill in 1904; the military service bill in 1916, and the tithe bill in 1918. In every one of those cases motions were made similar in nature, that further consideration be postponed, and in every case the ruling was that there was no authority under British tradition for such a course to be followed.
Today the Prime Minister paid a tribute to our system and the need of preserving parliament. I say to him that the responsibility
[The Deputy Chairman.]

cannot be dissolved by saying that the majority is with him in the stand he has taken. Parliament and the preservation of its prestige are paramount to a pipe line or to a prime minister frustrated. In every one of the cases to which I have referred, and I have the authorities here, the hon. gentleman occupying the position that you now occupy decided without question against any similar move being made. It is interesting to read what some of the participants in that debate had to say. At that time they did not report verbatim but rather in narrative form, and I refer hon. members to volume 139, page 1220 of the British Hansard for 1904, at which time Mr. Lloyd George was taking part in the debate on the education local authority bill. I quote:
Lloyd George joined in the debate and stated that ''It surely was the duty of the chairman to protect the minority in this respect. It was obvious that the object in thus drafting the bill with only one section was so as to be able to closure it in one motion."
And later:
Again Lloyd George warns the Prime Minister. A. G. Balfour, that everything had been compressed into a single clause in order that the matter might be rushed through.
But parliament decided otherwise through the chairman. I am not going to do other than simply state as a member of this house that I have gone through British Hansard and I find that never has such a devious course been accepted at any time. The mere ruling that the words "that further consideration be postponed"-I ask the Prime Minister, through you, if he would advance the argument in the Supreme Court of Canada that further consideration be postponed with regard to something that had not been considered? I am going to quote one who has a distinguished son as a member of this cabinet. In 1932 the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the leader from the province of Quebec whose successor is the Prime Minister, had this to say as reported on page 1497 of Hansard for that year:
It means that parliament is being asked to abrogate its position as the predominant factor in legislation. It means that we are being asked to agree to be dragged at the wheels of the Prime Minister and to make parliament an appendage of the executive.


Walter Edward Harris: He was not talking about closure.


John George Diefenbaker: I will read it all.
This attitude of the Prime Minister makes our duty to resist this legislation more imperative.

I am glad the minister suggested that because it is more applicable having regard to the Prime Minister's conduct in the last day or two.
The first duty of parliament is to remain a parliament, not to become a subservient and ornamental body. Parliament has a right which is certainly paramount to the convenience of the Prime Minister, the right to live.
May I interpolate, it is also superior to the frustration of a prime minister.
It has the duty to defend itself and not to allow anybody to invade its rights and privileges. It is the will of parliament, not that of the government, that is the will of the nation. When the Prime Minister says that he speaks for the whole of the country, he is mistaking the echo of his words for the voice of the Canadian people. It is parliament which is and must remain the authorized exponent of public opinion and of the public will.
And then later on:
The sovereignty of the people is delegated to parliament, not to the executive, and when I say "parliament", it means the minority as well as the majority in parliament.
I have given you the authorities and I am not going to reargue the points which have already been placed before you. However, I do make an appeal to the Prime Minister. This parliament, this institution should be a temple of freedom, not a place where frustration becomes the means whereby rights are swept aside and whereby rules are misinterpreted in order to achieve a temporary advantage. There is no interpretation that anyone can give that there can be further consideration of a clause that has never been considered.
Mr. Chairman, no matter how the word "further" is misinterpreted, the dictionary or any other meaning cannot be contrived to expand it to mean that further can have reference to something that has not yet been done or achieved. The Prime Minister could certainly act even now. There is no reason why he should allow himself as Prime Minister to be made an instrument to perpetrate on parliament a ruling which if achieved could be extended beyond the present limitations. If the present interpretation as advanced by the Prime Minister is correct, then all that would have to be done would be to bring in the bill and have the minister introducing it simply say, "Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the title; I move that no further consideration be given to these clauses." How ridiculous can we become. How spurious an argument can be advanced. I quote further from page 1498 the words of Mr. Lapointe: The duties of an opposition are, as he says, to discuss the measures which are submitted to parliament on the various stages of the bills, certainly not to obstruct. He says that would be a crime against the state. But, Mr. Speaker, when the measure is one that has the effect of making
31, 1956	4513
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation parliament extinguish itself, when it is a measure for the purpose of taking away all the rights, privileges and powers of parliament, it is then the duty of the opposition to try to prevent its adoption and those who perpetrate a crime against the state are those responsible for bringing down such a measure , . ,
I read that because I did not want to leave any portion out.
What he would conceive as a parliament is that we should stand at attention and salute when the Prime Minister wants us to do so, a parliament that would be ready to goose-step at the behest of the Prime Minister. Sir, the methods of the czar have produced bolshevism, and we do not wish to introduce that in Canada. It is an evil work, I claim, on the part of those who are in this way undermining the authority of parliament . . .
Those were the words of that tribune of democracy who, regardless of whether one agrees with him or not, at all times knew his sincerity, his capacity and his statesmanship. I ask the Prime Minister even now, even on the basis of a simple mathematical formula, if he were arguing a case in the Supreme Court of Canada, and there were three judgments along one line and one along the other, would he argue that the one should be preferred to the three, particularly when the acceptance of his interpretation of No. 1 would have the effect of emasculating parliament? Surely this government will not pursue its stubborn course. I join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in saying, what I have said in this parliament and outside, that I never believed that this thing would take place, with a man like the present Prime Minister in this position. I have always said, "After all, while one may disagree with him, he will endeavour at all times to uphold the sacredness of parliament". I ask him even now to make, or at least endeavour to make, and restore it as a temple of freedom instead of a place of majority repression.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have one further ground to bring forward and on which to base new argument, as you yourself invited, and that is the ground of commonsense. What are we being asked to do if we establish the precedent on the basis of the motion made by the Prime Minister today? We would be asked to emasculate the committee and to prevent the committee from doing that job for which it was set up, namely, to help the House of Commons, which has referred this bill to us.
I refer you to a citation in an old book but an authoritative one, Palgrave's "Chairman's Handbook", where you will find at page 87 the following passage under the heading "Duties and Powers of a Committee":
The assistance of those who appoint the committee is its legitimate function.
4514	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
In other words, the function of this committee is to assist the House of Commons who appointed us and referred this bill to us. It continues:
And this assistance is generally rendered by the conduct of an inquiry through the reception of evidence, the drafting of a document, or the consideration of papers referred to the committee.
What has been referred to us is a bill of seven clauses. We cannot consider that bill adequately unless we consider each clause. We are being asked now to accept closure on a motion moved by the Prime Minister when we have only had four clauses actually called and placed before us.
On the same subject, what Mr. Meighen said as to reasonableness is very appropriate. In column 9367 of Hansard for 1912-13, he said this. He had been asked by Mr. Guthrie what would happen if the government tried to close off all debate before the matter had even been considered. He said:
I endeavoured to meet that position and I said that within the reasonable meaning-
I am appealing here to common sense.
-of that rule the government would not be acting correctly or within the spirit of the rules if they did not permit the opposite side to speak.
He went on to answer a member who had asked him a question, by saying:
His difficulty is that he forgets that all sentences in law or anything else and all rules in the House of Commons as in law, must be interpreted in the stern light of commonsense. When the rule says that there must be a debate before the motion to postpone it is made, the word debate must be interpreted in a reasonable way in the light of the sentence.
Here we have the word "consideration" as applicable to committee. Let us apply this question to common sense. We are asked to use the precedent of 1932 in which, after one clause had been before the committee, all the other clauses were brought under closure. Although four clauses have been brought before us we are asked to apply that precedent today. What would that establish? It is the precedent that we have to consider, the ruling that would be made and embedded in the authorities of this house.
Supposing that we had a bill of 50 clauses, this would establish the precedent that one clause might be called and postponed and then the other 49 put under closure. Supposing we had a bill of 150 clauses, with one clause called and postponed and 149 put under closure without any previous discussion, or supposing we had the Criminal Code or the Canada Shipping Act, with 600 or 700 clauses 

we have statutes of that magnitude on our statute books and we very probably will have them again-are we to establish a precedent- is that what the right hon. gentleman asked us


to do?

that would say that when one clause has been called and postponed after 15 seconds discussion, and others not called, the other 699 can then be put under closure? That is what the right hon. gentleman is asking us to establish here today. What is to be the average? Four out of seven? One out of five? One out of 20? It becomes impossible of interpretation, and the full absurdity and unsoundness of the proposition now placed before us is made self-evident.
Therefore, I should like to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by referring you to one other statement made by Mr. Meighen when he discussed the closure rule and made it clear that it must be interpreted and applied in the light of common sense. He was asked whether the very sort of thing or a similar sort of thing to what is being done today could ever be done under this rule. Here is what he said, in column 7533 of Hansard. He was asked by Mr. German:
I did not say it should be done. I was asking the hon. gentleman if, under these rules, it could be done?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Prime Minister should listen to this one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 


Mr.   Meighen@: Yes, but it would be absurdity itself if it were done and I do not think that any hon. gentleman could suggest any method for guarding against what some hon. members may think is a terror but which I think could not be perpetrated except by a government which was at once insane and vicious.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That day has come.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If this goes through, it will be an affront, a precedent fastened upon the House of Commons, which can only be described as an insane and vicious act.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is one point, before you make your ruling, which I should like to refer, and which I do not believe has been dealt with, and certainly not emphasized. It seems to me, quite apart from the interpretation of the words, which certainly has great importance, that there is an extremely important question arising as to the interpretation of what was done in 1932. In 1932, which is the precedent upon which the Prime Minister now relies, an act of three sections was before the committee. The first section had been discussed and there was a wide discussion of the first section. I think it is important to note what that act was because the nature of the act has [DOT]something to do with the argument that the subsequent sections had also been discussed while section 1 was under consideration.

The act of 1932, when closure was moved under a blanket motion such as we have now, was an act respecting unemployment and farm relief. That was an act which had as its purpose the validating of certain steps taken under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, following the expiry date of that act on the first day of March, 1932, and making all the various steps that had been taken valid and also continuing the act in full force and effect. It was simply in its purpose the continuance on the statute books, with such necessary other powers as there might be, of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931.
There was not much question in anyone's mind about the necessity of continuing the act. There were certain discussions as to the details with regard to the procedure, but the whole core of the act that was before the house, the whole weight of the argument, rested on the discussion of section 1. Sections 2 and 3 only referred to the placing of all orders in council and regulations made under the provisions of the act before the house and also providing that the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and this act, that is, the act of 1932, should be read and construed as one act.
In other words, sections 2 and 3 were simply definitive sections which followed in the natural course of events from section 1. Section 1 had been discussed; and I am not going to argue about the desirability of this precedent. As we look back on this precedent of 1932 we realize how dangerous it is to move from one precedent to another which narrows and restricts the rights of parliament. In this case, if there are objections to the arguments that were made in support of this procedure, they can be made on the ground and only on the ground that sections 2 and 3 had not been considered within the meaning of the rules because they had in fact not been discussed separately. I certainly do not like the wrapping together of sections in this way but at least it can be said that in discussing section 1 of the act in 1932 the effect of sections 2 and 3 was embraced in that discussion. In any event, it was simply an act continuing another act already on the statute books and in three short sections making such provisions as were appropriate for the continuance of that act.
This is a very different situation, different in every way. Section 1 was not discussed. Section 1 was not considered in any ordinary meaning of the word "considered". Whether "consider" means to discuss or to examine or to debate, in this case there was none. The section was called and it was
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation postponed. The same applied to section 2 and the same applied to section 3. Then for the first time we came to section 4 and there was some discussion but only then under the limitations of having passed over the earlier sections.
The Prime Minister made the extraordinary contention this afternoon that there was in fact no difference in the situation resulting from the absence of any consideration of section 1. Mr. Chairman, by practice and by tradition the first section is the section where discussion can take place, where there can be questions and answers, and it opens the broad discussion of the legislation generally. That was denied to us. So also was any discussion of section 2, and when the Prime Minister says, with some suggestion of a desire to meet the wishes of the members, that he thought we might well discuss the later sections, that really is the unkindest cut of all.
After all, here were section 2 and section 3 that were important sections and we were not allowed to discuss them. We got into section 4 without even having had a chance to define what the words meant that were going to be used in the act or to know what kind of corporation it was that we were going to discuss in section 4. The two situations are entirely different. No matter how far one may strain the application of the decision in 1932, Mr. Chairman, I submit that it would be straining the English language in a way that would make any ruling a mere fiction if it were said that the precedent of 1932 was justification for the acceptance of the motion now before us. That would be so even if it were said that there has been consideration of all the sections of this measure in the limited debate that has taken place on one section after closure on section 1, closure on section 2, closure on section 3 and no opportunity whatever even to have sections 5, 6 and 7 brought before us.
No, Mr. Chairman, there is no possible parallel between the two cases. It would be a shameless distortion of the meaning of simple and understandable words if it were said that those words embraced such a procedure as that which we have here and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you now have it in your hands to restore to this parliament some of the dignity, some of the honour, some of the tradition which have been the rich heritage of those who now sit here as the successors of those who built a great institution over the years since 1867. Upon you is now imposed the opportunity and the responsibility to return to this house the meaning of words in the language that we use and to give to those words a sensible and understandable meaning that does not
4516	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation place in the heart of every member of the house uncertainty as to whether or not the rules are really to be applied in the strict meaning of the words.
It has been said here that there has been reason for concern on the part of every member about the nature of some of the exchanges that have been taking place. Let there be no uncertainty, let there be no pretence that the chair and the chairmanship of the committee have not been called into question by the members of this house. They have by votes which have tested the rulings that have been made. If on this occasion the words of this ruling are now extended to embrace the interpretation that is sought by the Prime Minister, then I submit it would be most difficult for members of the house at any time to refer to any rule and to say that it meant what it said in the plain language in which it was printed. On this occasion, Mr. Chairman, I submit there is a great opportunity to restore in their full meaning the acceptance of the rules we have, and to restore to the chair the dignity it should possess in this house.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I preface this ruling with a reference to the last remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. It is always the duty of a chairman, I take it, when a ruling is to be made to make a ruling which will be unpalatable to one side or the other.
I have every respect for the warmth of feeling on both sides of the house on this occasion, but I think I am entitled to express some regret that it should be indicated to the chair in advance that you either think as we do or-I will go a little farther than the Leader of the Opposition went-you are not worthy of the office you hold. I am sorry to say that, but I can put no other interpretation upon his remarks.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman; I would hope that we would not continue the nature of the discussions which have disturbed this house in recent days. I do not think what I said was open to that meaning. I am suggesting that it would greatly add to the confidence of this house in the meaning of words if the chair, on this occasion, came to the conclusion that words had their simple, ordinary meaning.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that clarification paragraph. I suppose it would be a very small compliment coming from me if I were to say that those members who have spoken today should be complimented on the work that they have done in connection with this case.
I have done a little myself, but I have had considerable help from those who have spoken.


Now, as this matter has aroused so much debate I presume it is my duty to give some reasons for the ruling that I am about to make. I do that knowing full well that it is said so often in the legal profession that many a judge's case would stand up against appeal if he had not given written reasons to support his decision. The whole question really seems to revolve around the interpretation to be put on the words "further consideration" found in standing order 33. It is submitted by those who oppose the legality of the Prime Minister's motion that further consideration cannot possibly be interpreted as applying to the two different classes of sections which we have before us, the first three of which were called and which certain members of the opposition claim did not receive consideration worthy of the name, and the last three which admittedly have not yet been called.
I think that decision has already been made. I think the position I am in at the moment is not to indicate to the committee what I think the rules of this house should be but what they are. In most, not all, of the submissions made this afternoon there has been a great deal of quotation from statements made in similar debates to this in previous years. While the people who made those speeches, perhaps by their prominence in the life of the country, are entitled to be quoted and listened to with respect, those quotations none the less were arguments and not decisions. We have been told, and it is so, that four somewhat similar incidents have been before this house. In three of those four the question which has been raised as a point of order never came up. In those first three the clauses had been considered and therefore the question as to whether or not it was necessary did not come up and was not argued.
This leaves only the case of 1932, and incidentally in point of time the most recent case of this kind to come before the house. I believe it was the last time closure came before the house, but I am not sure about that. On page 1605 of Hansard for March 31, 1932, Mr. Bennett made this statement:
I beg leave to give notice that, at the next sitting of the committee of the whole house, I shall move that the further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
There was some discussion at that time, but of course that was the notice and the matter was not before the Chair.
On page 1609, the following day, when the committee resumed Mr. Bennett said:
Before the order is proceeded with, Mr. Chairman, I desire to make the motion of which I

gave notice last evening, that further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
He made some further brief remarks and the chairman put the question. Then Mr. Gardiner, not the present member of the house, rose to a point of order as follows:
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is not clause 1 the question that is before the committee at the present time?
The chairman, who was Mr. Hanson of York-Sunbury, said:
Technically speaking, clause 1 was before the committee, but the committee considered every clause of the bill. As a matter of fact, therefore, all the clauses of the bill have been before the committee.


Mr. Gardiner:: On another point of order: Is it possible to have three clauses of a bill considered in committee at the same time? Is it not more correct to say that in accordance with the ruling of the Chair, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of clauses 2 and 3.


The Chairman (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: I do not know that I should advise the hon. member touching the suggestion which he has just made. I do not understand it to be a point of order.
The chairman then put the question that clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed. It has been agreed, I think, by all-I mean all in this committee- that clause 1 had been called and debated and clauses 2 and 3 had not been called, but it seems to be generally agreed in the discussion here that their subject matter was discussed during the debate on clause 1. In this committee clauses 1, 2 and 3 have been called;-I leave aside for the moment the question of whether they have been considered because this house has made a ruling on that-clause 4 has been called and debated at length. I do not think that it could be seriously contended that the discussion on clause 4 did not range pretty well over clauses 5, 6 and 7 and 1, 2 and 3. At any rate, I find that it did for the purpose of this section.
Now, I am not in the least unmindful of the not only impassioned but impressive appeals which have been made to me by members speaking for the opposition in their argument that the Prime Minister's resolution is out of order. I accept that responsibility, as I accept what I consider to be my only responsibility at the moment; not to rule upon the merits or demerits of a motion, not to rule upon the desirability or otherwise of procedure or of a standing order, but to try to come to a conclusion as cold-bloodedly as I can as to whether or not the motion submitted by the Prime Minister is in order. In
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation accordance with the rules and the practice of this house, based on the last decision in 1932,
I so rule.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling to the house.


Mr. Nowlan:: They are all the same.


George Alexander Drew: Tear up the rule books now.


William Earl Rowe: Precedents are established for anything. You can do as you like in the future. If any of you young fellows ever become Prime Minister, you can do anything.


Walter Edward Harris: We like you around.


William Earl Rowe: You have precedents for anything. Close parliament; throw away the key; throw away the rule books. Everything is set. Things that are of interest to the country, don't debate them.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: For the information of the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-the hon. member for Kamloops raised the point of order-I propose, before officially submitting it to the house, to read them the report I propose to make on this ruling I have made.
In committee of the whole, with respect to the Prime Minister's motion, Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill had not been before the committee and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee and, therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses could not come within ambit of the proposed motion. The chairman ruled that in accordance with rules and practices of the house the motion is in order.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole, Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moved that at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.
Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill have not been before the committee and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee, and therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses could not come within the ambit of the proposed motion.
The chairman ruled that in accordance with the rules and the practice of the house, the motion is in order.
Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question before the house is an appeal from a ruling of the chairman of the committee of the whole.
4518	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation In committee of the whole, Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moved that at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.
Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill have not been before the committee and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee, and therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses could not come within the ambit of the proposed motion.
The chairman ruled that in accordance with the rules and the practice of the house, the motion is in order.
Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question will you hear me on a point of order? My point of order is, sir, that on other occasions when an appeal has been made from the committee of the whole house you have based your action on citation 428 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads as follows:
In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which lie has decided. The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the house in the language reported to him and put the question. [DOT]'That the decision of the chairman be confirmed." No discussion is allowed on the appeal.
The point I want to bring Your Honour's attention to is that you appear to be overlooking something which has been an established practice of the house and simply has been in abeyance because the issue has not been raised for a great number of years. This method of appealing from the committee of the whole house to the Speaker in days gone by followed two courses and, as Bourinot points out on page 395 of his fourth edition:
If a question of order arise, the chairman will decide it himself, unless it be deemed more advisable to refer the matter to the speaker in the house itself.
Then he quotes rule 14, which was applicable at the time this book was written.
Rule 14 provides: "The chairman of the committee of the whole house shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house on receiving a report thereof."
Then in a very interesting note at the bottom of the page the editor of this book, Mr. Bourinot, says:
The first appeal to the house under this rule occurred in the session of 1885, and there have been several since that date, but it has inconveniences, since the house is called upon suddenly 

and without debate to decide a question of order which many of its members may not have heard discussed in committee, and the result is, in many cases, a political, rather than a judicial vote, which might not stand the test if strict parliamentary rules were applied.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in considering matters such as these one has to take very carefully into consideration whether or not a separate group of decisions may be established in committee of the whole house apart from decisions established by Speakers. As I understood Your Honour on other occasions when we were having this type of appeal, you stated or implied that you had no part other than simply to put the vote to the house. I am suggesting for your careful consideration that you have two courses of action to follow. The first is to consider the motion itself, the point of appeal, and give assistance or advice to the chairman of the committee of the whole house who may then revise his ruling in committee of the whole house. Your second course of action is that if you are satisfied the rules have been satisfactorily obeyed, that the precedents have been followed, you may proceed to put the vote as you have done on several occasions in the past.
Bourinot goes on to discuss this on page 396. He deals with the first matter which is now in front of you, the report in writing from the chairman of the committee and the fact that the Speaker will put the question, and then he says:
If the committee wish assistance or confirmation on a point of procedure on which they are in doubt, or on which the chairman has not expressed or does not wish to express an opinion, they may ask the advice of the Speaker.
Dealing with that further down he says:
In the former case, where the committee refers to the Speaker for advice, progress is reported on motion duly made, and when the Speaker has given his advice, the committee resumes in accordance with regular practice.
Now, sir, that matter came up for discussion in the House of Commons here on June 6, 1899. The point at issue in committee of the whole house then was whether or not a document which had been referred to in the course of debate should or should not be tabled. The Deputy Speaker, the chairman of the committee, ruled that it was not necessary in his opinion because of a lapse of time that had occurred since it had first been mentioned. Then a procedural dispute developed as to how the appeal should be made to the Speaker.
Sir Charles Tupper was interested in the matter and he said, as reported in column 4448 of Hansard for June 6, 1899:
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you have given your ruling, and I desire to appeal from your ruling to the Speaker. It is a very important point.

You will note, sir, that he did not say he was appealing to the house. Then considerable discussion occurred. After Sir Charles Tupper had claimed the right to appeal rather than having to go through the business of moving a motion that the committee rise and report, the Deputy Speaker said, as reported in column 4449 of Hansard of that date:
The hon. gentleman will find in Sir John Bourinot, at page 483:
"If it be found expedient in either house to refer a point of order to the Speaker, a member will move that the chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again that day. When the Speaker has resumed, the chairman will report that the committee wishes to be instructed as to the point in question."
Then the committee had a little trouble with regard to the motion to rise and report, which was defeated and they were left in a state of suspended animation.
It appeared then that things had come to an impasse. In column 4451 of the same volume Sir Charles Tupper spoke at some length with regard to this matter and read from Bourinot of that particular period, an earlier volume than the one I have here. He also referred to points of order similar to that which had occurred in 1885 and 1886. This is what he read from the Bourinot that was in his possession in 1899:
If a question of order arise in committee, the chairman will decide it himself, unless it be deemed more advisable to refer the matter to the Speaker. Rule 76 provides that a question of order arising in committee of the whole shall be decided by the chairman, subject to an appeal to the house, but his order to the committee can only be censured by the house on the Speaker receiving a report thereof.
May I indicate here that rule 76 has come down to us with only the slightest modification and appears as standing order 59 (4), which reads:
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.
I note that in the rule book of 1922 that ruling is substantially the same as it was in 1899 and as it is at the present time. Our present rule has modified the one of 1922 by leaving out two or three inconsequential words, and the rule that was then No. 14 read: The chairman of the committee of the whole house shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in 1899 there was a firm course of action established in the House of Commons at this particular stage in its proceedings when the committee of the
31. 1956	4519
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation whole house asks for an appeal and expects in that appeal to get a decision or advice from the Speaker on a point of order that has been raised; or, failing that, the second course of action which is putting the question.
In column 4452 of Hansard for June 6, 1899, Sir Charles Tupper said these words:
It is out of respect to the Speaker that the practice I refer to has been followed-
He had been referring to the practice of 1885 and so on.
-because the Speaker is considered the appellate authority who settles the practices, not only for the house, but the committee, and the chairman of the committee has not the right to prevent the Speaker regulating, if desired by anyone in the committee, the point in dispute.
He goes on to point out how that appeal to the Speaker may be arrived at.
I said that on June 6, 1899, there had been a little difficulty and some uncertainty in the committee. On June 7 of that year the Deputy Speaker rising at the commencement of committee proceedings said this, as reported in column 4553 of Hansard:
With the permission of the house, before we proceed with the consideration of this bill, I would like to make a full statement, in view of what occurred last night.
With the view of preventing any such misunderstanding with respect to the procedure on the questions that arose during yesterday's sittings in committee of the whole, and on the appeal to the house from the decision of the chairman of the committee, I may state that I have referred to the authorities on such subjects, and find the following rules laid down authoritatively.
Then he gives the four rules which were the authority of that day and which should pertain to the present. Here they are:
1.	If the committee wishes assistance or information on a point of procedure on which they are in doubt, or on which the chairman has not expressed or does not wish to express an opinion they may ask the advice of the Speaker. But! as a rule of practice, the chairman alone is responsible for the business of the committee, and no appeal can be made from his decision on a point of procedure except to the house.
He then goes on to give the authority. The second rule is:
2.	In the former case, where the committee refers to the Speaker for advice, progress is reported on motion duly made, and when the Speaker has given his advice, the committee resumes in accordance with the regular practice of the house.
The third and fourth deal with putting the question and what happens if the Speaker be absent. I bring this out to indicate the two courses of action which are open, to indicate that this is a practice which has been firmly established in the House of Commons but which has not been called into use for a great many years until just this last week or so. In the interval the collective memory of the House of Commons has forgotten the practice

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation which was authoritative in the past and the present rule dealing just with appeals to the house, as it states, was in days gone by a reference to the Speaker for his decision and advice. If he was satisfied that the ruling made by the chairman was sound I presume he would simply put the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds further would he be kind enough to give me the page in Hansard of 1899 where the Speaker laid down those rules?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was the Deputy Speaker and I think overnight between June 6 and 7 he must have consulted Mr. Speaker. This will be found in columns 4553 and 4554.
I suggest that the Speaker's duty, which I know he clearly understands himself, is to understand everything that comes before this house and to determine whether or not it is in accord with the rules and traditions of parliament. Beauchesne's 1922 edition refers to Hatsell at page 117 as follows:
For the Speaker is not placed in the chair merely to read every bit of paper which any member puts in his hands in the form of a question; but it is his duty to make himself perfectly acquainted with the orders of the house and its ancient practice, and to endeavour to carry those orders and that practice into execution.
I suggest that while perhaps that practice may be called ancient, nevertheless it is sound. I took the trouble to investigate the English practice, and I would refer you to May's fifteenth edition at page 516. I find that in England they have used this method all along of asking advice from the Speaker, as well as simply putting the question as to whether the chairman's ruling should be sustained. I quote from page 516 as follows:
In 1889 appeal was made to the Speaker regarding extensive alterations made by the committee on the tithe rent-charge recovery bill. He stated that, whilst he desired to safeguard the rights and jurisdiction of the chairman of ways and means in giving an opinion on a matter of committee procedure, and although he could not, as Speaker, stop the bill on the point of order that the bill was a new bill, he unhesitatingly affirmed that the practice of the house had been, in a case of this kind, to withdraw a bill which had been so dealt with, and to introduce another bill in an amended form on which the decision of the house could be obtained upon a second reading. The bill was thereupon withdrawn.
I emphasize the fact that this was an appeal to the Speaker for his advice. His advice was accepted by the committee and the bill was withdrawn.
On 27 January 1913 the Speaker was asked to express his opinion as to certain amendments which it was proposed to move to the franchise and registration bill, then being considered in committee of the whole house. The Speaker-

I omit a few words which are not applicable.
-said that the admission of any one of the amendments to which his attention had been directed would so alter the bill as to make it a new bill, and that he would advise the house under the circumstances that the bill should be withdrawn and leave be asked for the introduction of a new bill.
I think that shows clearly that two courses are open to a committee of the whole house, in England as in Canada. I checked the British Hansard to see what happened, and I find that on January 24, 1913, Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. Lloyd George were engaged in the discussion of a point of order. Mr. F. E. Smith is reported in column 879 of the British Hansard of January 24, 1913, as follows:
I ask your ruling at once, before the right hon. gentleman proceeds-as it might have consequences no one would desire if the view I am submitting to you is right-as to whether that matter falls within your competence to decide or whether it is not a matter for Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker alone.
He was addressing those remarks in committee to the chairman. Then Mr. Lloyd George, who was also interested in this point of order, went on to say:
The question which I am putting to you, sir, is whether you will rule during the committee stage that the bill has been so transformed that you could not proceed with it during the committee stage. I certainly am not in any sense challenging the opinion of Mr. Speaker, because Mr. Speaker has not given a ruling upon the point, and I am certain that if he did X would certainly challenge it except with Mr. Speaker in the chair. What I want a ruling upon is whether you in committee may feel that the bill has been so transformed as to be a totally different bill that you could not allow any progress to be made with it.
Then the chairman said this:
My answer to the right hon. gentleman is that, in my view, the only thing that concerns me as chairman is whether each amendment as it comes up in turn is in order-that is to say, within the scope of the bill-and otherwise in order. I have nothing to do with the question which appears to be raised, the question of what the cumulative effect of amendments may be with regard to future stages of the bill. That does not fall in any way within my jurisdiction. I should certainly not have any power to stop the bill in committee, however many amendments are proposed and carried, if each one individually was in order.
That was on Friday, and on Monday following the prime minister rose in his place and asked for the advice of the Speaker with regard to this trouble which had arisen in committee. Mr. Speaker is reported in column 1020 as follows:
I believe I should be meeting the general convenience of the house if I were to state now what my view would be supposing certain amendments to the franchise bill were to be admitted. I will say this:	If the amendments of which notice has
been given by the government, and one or two of the amendments designed to grant women suffrage

were to be inserted in the bill, my opinion is that under those circumstances the bill would be substantially a new bill. Therefore, in accordance with the practice of the house, it ought to be withdrawn and a fresh bill ought to be introduced.
I bring forward these examples to show, Mr. Speaker, that there are two courses of action open; that when you yourself are presented with an appeal from the committee of the whole house it is within your rights and obviously your duty to examine that appeal and decide whether or not the decision reached within the committee is in accordance with the established rules and precedents of the house. Otherwise, if that is not done, it is quite possible that a body of decisions made by the chairman of the committee of the whole house would be set up, which, I think, would be apparent if that practice had prevailed in the past or prevailed in the United Kingdom House of Commons now, in that all our reference books would contain precedents and citations from deputy speakers. There are none of those anywhere. The references are always to decisions reached by Speakers themselves. I think the Speaker has an overriding responsibility, and particularly does that apply when a new matter comes to the House of Commons in committee of the whole house.
When some new decision has to be made for which there are no Speaker's decisions to go upon, what position are we placed in at that time? I think that is the position we are in right now. We have something now in front of us on which heretofore in the House of Commons no decision has been made. Are we now simply to have a vote on the decision reached by the chairman of the committee of the whole house, without an opportunity for the Speaker himself to examine that ruling and see whether it is in accordance with established precedents?
I think not. I think that here the duty of the Speaker overrides the duty of the chairman in the committee of the whole house, as in any other committee, and that when a report comes from the committee of the whole house, such as this, he must first examine that report and decide whether or not he will advise the committee of the whole house, because it is obviously in difficulty or, having decided that the matter is in order, soundly based on precedent, then he may put the question.
If it is an entirely new matter, I think the Speaker should give it consideration and bring to bear upon it the benefit of his great experience, just as has been done in this example I have quoted from the United Kingdom House of Commons, where the Speaker himself was appealed to, to make decisions which were considered to be not
31. 1956	4521
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation within the competence of the chairman of the committee of the whole house. I use that word "competence" in the proper technical sense, because no matter how able a chairman of the committee of the whole house may be he is working within a restricted field.
The same would apply, surely, to other chairmen of committees, as we have seen here where the chairman of the committee of the whole house may be spelled off for a while. I would not say any one of the members of the house, but in rotation various members are given the opportunity to occupy the place of the chairman, and it is conceivable that trouble might arise in the committee of the whole house when someone of inexperience was in the chair. Could he then make a decision and simply have that decision upheld by a vote of the house without the Speaker, a man of experience, the custodian of the rules of the House of Commons, passing his opinion upon that ruling?


Walter Edward Harris: I shall detain the house only one very brief moment. The wording of the old paragraph 58 (3), and I am quoting from the third edition of Beauchesne, is:
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house;
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose and said, "I appeal your ruling to the house."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words in connection with the point of order-


An hon. Member:: We heard you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -raised by my hon. friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. In the course of my brief remarks I shall answer the point which the Minister of Finance has just made. In fact it is one of the points on which I have made a few notes.
It seems to me that the point the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made about a body of rulings being built up is extremely important, as Your Honour is well aware, because it has been quite a chore for you at this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Votes and Proceedings have to include all the rulings you make from the chair. Indeed, not only are your rulings on points of order included in Votes and Proceedings, but various other statements you feel called upon to make from time to time are included in Votes and Proceedings or the Journals. As hon. members are aware, the
4522	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Journals occupy a more official place, so far as the records of the house are concerned, than is the case with respect to Hansard. However, rulings made by the chairman of the committee of the whole house do not result in the statement by the chairman being included in the Journals.
In other words, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, a body of judgments, which may have a very great bearing on the future proceedings of the house and of the committee of the whole house, is being built up without the sanction of being reviewed by Mr. Speaker and his opinions thereon included in the Journals. I recognize as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has had to recognize, that this is dipping back into a practice that has fallen somewhat into disuse, but it seems to me that an issue such as the one with which we are confronted today, important as it is, raises the question as to whether or not the Speaker should merely put the question to the house or whether he should examine the report and express his views thereon.
The Minister of Finance read from the old standing order 58 (3), which is now 59 (4), and which reads as follows:
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house-
I do not recall the exact words I used, but I have no reason to doubt that what I said was that I appealed the chairman's ruling to the house. I would point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that that is in the nature of an appeal to a higher court. I can imagine that in his practice as a lawyer he has had occasion to appeal cases to a higher court. For all I know he may have gone right to the Supreme Court of Canada in his practice as a lawyer. I do not think he would be satisfied if he took a case to the supreme court and all the supreme court did was vote among the nine justices on the appeal without hearing argument or considering the merits of the case.


Mr. Dickey:: That is the best argument you have ever made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear support from my hon. friend from Halifax. That is support indeed. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we have been following this practice in recent years, that the ancient practice to which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has referred is more in keeping with the importance of an issue such as this, more in keeping with the fact that we are appealing to a higher court. I think some really serious attention should be given to the request of


the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that you consider examining the report that has been made to you.
In connection with this matter-and I have in mind the statement that Your Honour made on this matter a few days ago-may I point out that so far as our standing orders are concerned, which are, after all, basic to our practices, there is nothing in the standing orders themselves which says that you must merely put the question to the members of the house for a vote. The standing order which the Minister of Finance has read says that the matter is subject to an appeal to the house and I submit, now that we are in the house and Your Honour as a member of the house is in the chair, that it is up to the house to decide how it shall deal with this appeal. You now have a least two members of the house feeling that the way the house should deal with it is, first of all, by hearing from Your Honour as to your views on the report that has been placed in your hands.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am inclined to agree with everything they have said except their conclusions.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All of it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has gone deeply into the history of some of these precedents and I think he deserves credit for the work he has done. No doubt he will agree with me, because I have had occasion to go through the same paces myself, that except for the precedent he put his finger on in 1899 he did not find a single other precedent. I must correct myself immediately. I think he will find one that occurred shortly after the position of Deputy Speaker was created in 1885. I believe that shortly thereafter, perhaps a couple of years after the position had been created, a Speaker instead of putting the report to the house did review the ruling of the chairman, but that is the only time.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made the case, and did so very well, that if the committee desire at any stage of their proceedings to have the opinion of the Speaker they move that the chairman report progress for the purpose of obtaining the opinion of the Speaker on certain matters. That is not the case which is before me at the moment. I have verified that that is so by calling one of the clerks to the chair. I said: "Was there a request from the committee that my opinion be sought on this

matter? Was there a motion that the chairman rise and report progress in order to ask my opinion?" He assured me that such was not the case. In any event, the report I have before me-and while I was behind the curtains I heard the chairman read it-does not contain anything to that effect.
The hon. member has indicated that the position is outlined in Bourinot at pages 395 and 396. Bourinot also outlines the procedure, and he does say you must move that the chairman report progress for that purpose. But the chairman has not been moved out of the chair for the purpose of obtaining my opinion. This procedure about moving the chairman out of the chair for this purpose was confirmed precisely by the hon. member when he read what the Deputy Speaker said in 1899. As found in columns 4553 and 4554 of Hansard of June 7, 1899, the Deputy Speaker said:
With the permission of the house, before we proceed with the consideration of this bill, 1 would like to make a full statement, in view of what occurred last night.
With the view of preventing any such misunderstanding with respect to the procedure on the questions that arose during yesterday's sittings in committee of the whole, and on the appeal to the house from the decision of the chairman of the committee, I may state that I have referred to the authorities on such subjects, and find the following rules laid down authoritatively:
"1. If the committee wishes assistance or information on a point of procedure on which they are in doubt, or on which the chairman has not expressed or does not wish to express an opinion, they may ask the advice of the Speaker. But, as a rule of practice, the chairman alone is responsible for the business of the committee, and no appeal can be made from his decision on a point of procedure except to the house. . . .
2.	In the former case, when the committee refers to the Speaker for advice, progress is reported on motion duly made, and when the Speaker has given his advice, the committee resumes in accordance with the regular practice of the house. . . .
3.	In case of an appeal to the house,-
I submit this is the stage at which we are now.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation is, "Functions of a committee on a bill." Then it is set out that the committee is bound by the decision of the house given on second reading, and so on. It then says that the objects of a bill are stated in its long title, and then makes the third point that an amendment which is outside the scope of the bill is out of order and cannot be entertained.
Then May deals with such alterations in the bill as endanger the future stages of the bill, and says that in those cases it has been decided that the procedure to be followed is for the chairman to report progress and ask the opinion of the Speaker on the matter. But at this moment-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since it is now after six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that you reserve your ruling until eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: After six o'clock you cannot conduct any further business.


James Sinclair: You cannot interrupt the Speaker when he is on his feet. Rule 1.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no objection whatever to considering the matter between now and eight o'clock, but I want to tell the hon. member that I have listened to a case very well presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, that I have listened to the Minister of Finance and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that I looked and nobody else rose, whereupon I rose. I am now making my ruling, and at eight o'clock I shall conclude it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
-there is no such motion made, but the chairman leaves the chair immediately, and refers the point in dispute to the Speaker, so that the house may decide thereon. . . ."
Then a fourth rule is set out but it has no bearing on the case before us at the moment. The two instances referred to in May by the hon. member, at pages 515 and 516, had to do with the case where amendments moved in committee of the whole destroyed the bill, changed the bill or altered the bill to such an extent that the future stages of the bill were likely to be affected. What was being dealt with there in those two cases was the cumulative effect of amendments in committee on the future stages of a bill. If the hon. member looks at page 515 of May, fifteenth edition, he will see that the heading there 67509-287
Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), that this house do now adjourn.


Mr. Marlin:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member tor Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. In connection with the subject matter that was raised before six o'clock and on which I had commenced to give a ruling, I did indicate that the theory referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had to do with the eventuality that when in committee of the whole the members wished, with the concurrence of the chairman of the committee, that a matter relating to procedure be referred to the Speaker. In order to obtain such a reference a motion must be made and if carried the matter is referred to the Speaker.
In cases where the chairman himself has doubts and does not wish to make a decision he may ask the committee to refer the matter to the Speaker, and upon someone making a motion to the effect that he leave the chair for that purpose, he makes a report in which he includes the subject matter on which he wants to have the decision of the Speaker.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in speaking about authority-in that instance Bourinot-quoted from Bourinot's fourth edition which was published in 1916. He did say that in a footnote Bourinot stated since 1885 there had been several instances. By "several instances" I do not think he meant any more than four or five.
In 1885, as recorded in columns 1509 and 1510 of Hansard, there was .an instance of an appeal from a decision made by the chairman of the committee of the whole where this matter of appeal, as to whether it is to the house or to the Speaker, was debated, and Mr. Blake indicated as follows:
That reference is not to this appeal. This appeal is one to the house, not to the Speaker. I know it is competent to move that the committee rise with a view of obtaining the opinion of the highest

authority on a point of order. It is in the discretion of the Speaker to give an opinion or not. I remember an instance in which a committee rose with a view to obtaining the opinion of the Speaker, but the Speaker declined to give an opinion, and the house went back into committee.
Later on in the debate Mr. Blake again said:
I maintain there is no right on the part of any member of this committee to propose an appeal to the Speaker; there is no appeal to the Speaker under our rules. The appeal is to the house, just as the appeal from the Speaker's decision is to the house. But when the committee desires, as it may well desire to get the opinion of the Speaker upon any point, it has been ruled, and it is competent to the committee to pass a motion in order that the chairman may report that fact to the Speaker, therefore, our appeal under the rule is not to the gentleman who occupies the chair at all; it is to the House of Commons, just as the appeal from the Speaker himself is to the House of Commons, you occupy in that regard no inferior position to the Speaker himself. You are not a subordinate officer whose decision is subject to appeal at all.
He was referring, of course, to the chairman.
Your appeal is subject to the same appeal as that of the Speaker himself. But there is a practice, not of an appeal to the Speaker, but of a case in which the committee finding that they wished to report, or that the chairman has a doubt in his mind, and that it was desirable to get the opinion of the highest authority, then the committee report progress in order that the Speaker may deliver his decision.
Following 1885 there was an instance in 1903 and another in 1908. These two instances appear in the Journals; page 467 for August 3, 1903 and page 433 for May 8, 1908.
In 1911 the chairman made a ruling and Mr. Pugsley then appealed to the Speaker from his ruling. I quote now from Hansard, volume II, 1911-12, dated February 22, in column 3616. Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and said:


Mr. Speaker:: The question before the house is, shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?


Mr.   Pugsley@: I would like to explain to Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: It is not open to debate. Those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the chair will please say "Aye".
Those opposed will please say "No".
I declare the ruling of the Chair is sustained.


Mr.   Pugsley@: Before you leave the chair would you allow me to say that there has been no appeal made to the house, but an appeal to Your Honour under the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The appeal is to the house, not to the Chair.


Mr.   Pugsley@: I made no appeal to the house. Before you leave the chair-


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot permit discussion, because the rules strictly forbid it.
I think I have quoted enough to indicate that although there is merit in the point advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, the point he raises is one of academic interest.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
4525
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: I say it is one of academic interest, but at this moment the report I have is that a ruling made by the chairman of the committee has been appealed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Therefore I come back to citation 428 of Beauchesne's third edition, and I repeat it:
From the chairman's decision no appeal should be made to the Speaker.
In the case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which he has decided. The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the house in the language reported to him and put the question. "That the decision of the chairman be confirmed". No discussion is allowed on the appeal.
That is the situation as I see it, and now that the report has been placed before the house I suppose I will have to ask shall the chairman's report-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask if you are ruling on the point of order I raised?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Read Hansard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I consider it a matter of very practical importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre rose to submit a subject to the Chair and at the time he did that he said, "May I rise on a point of order?" or "Will you listen to a point of order?" or something to that effect.
I could not conceive at that time what point of order could be raised on a report submitted to the house by the chairman of the committee on an appeal. The appeal under our rules is provided as an absolute right. In committee of the whole when the chairman makes a ruling hon. members have an absolute right to appeal to the house, and it is in the exercise of that right that I am called upon to perform this function of submitting the report of the committee to the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, would you
please give me an opportunity to ask for an explanation? When we rose at six o'clock I understood you to say that you would give your ruling on the point of order which I had raised when we resumed at eight o'clock. I think that is what we were expecting and I think that is what should be given to the house on this occasion, a definite ruling on the point of order which I raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know what the hon. member thinks I have been saying since the previous vote was taken. I did give my

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation ruling, and I did say that I had reverted to the position which was the only one for me to take and which is founded on citation 428 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads:
From the chairman's decision no appeal should be made to the Speaker. In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which he has decided.
That has been done.
The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the house in the language reported to him and put the question.
So in the execution of that "must" I understand it to be my duty at the moment to put the question: Shall the chairman's ruling be sustained? Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Those who are
opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: No. no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, are you asking for the yeas and nays on your ruling on my point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to resume his seat. If he has any remarks to make I shall be glad to resume my seat and listen to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point Df order which I think is fundamental to the procedure in this house with regard to appealing from the committee of the whole to the house. I suggested to you that the practice of the house in the past followed two courses, first counsel or advice by the Speaker as to the ruling made in the committee of the whole house and, second, the vote or putting the question to the house with regard to the chairman's ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the hon. member's point most reverently and I think I have answered it. I think I understand the point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am appealing from your ruling on that point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has said so, and I understood that was what he intended to do. What he does not understand is that in my view there is no appeal at this moment. I do not want this to be taken as a precedent in the future, but it is my considered opinion that on the matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre at this stage there is no appeal. That
r.Mr. Speaker,!
is my opinion. I have thought this over most carefully during the dinner recess that there should not be any appeal at this moment when it is my duty to take the report of the chairman of the committee and submit it to the house.


An hon. Member:: Do that.


Mr. Speaker:: However, I am sure we will advance much better if I allow the appeal, but 1 repeat that I do not want this to be taken as a precedent. The hon. member is appealing the ruling I have made?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appeal your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question Is on the following matter. Upon the receiving of a report from the chairman of the committee of the whole on Bill No. 298, Mr. Churchill raised a point of order to the effect that the decision of the chairman should be subject to review by the Speaker.
I ruled that in accordance with standing order 59 (4) the appeal contained in the report received from the chairman was not to the Speaker but to the house. Whereupon Mr. Churchill appealed from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: (Translation):
Starr
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Tustin
White (Hastings-Frontenac)
White (Middlesex East) Winch
Zaplitny-57.
I declare-


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: 


Mr. Speaker-(Text):: 


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member be good enough to give the Speaker a chance to declare the result of the division that has taken place?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am sorry. I thought you were through.


An hon. Member:: You are through.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the Speaker's ruling sustained.
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Rea):
That the house do now adjourn.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.
(Text):
NAYS Messrs:


Mr. Weir:: Mr. Speaker, our members are in the house and are prepared to take the vote right now.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now, shall
we-



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. You will recall, sir, that some time ago I brought to your attention an attack upon Your Honour which appeared in a Montreal paper. You made an appeal at that time for some action to be taken on the matter. Since no action has been taken, it appears to have encouraged others to commit the same offence. I should like to call your attention to a letter which appears in the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, May 30, of this year, which is headed, I presume by the editor of the paper, "They Will Pay". It reads as follows:
Sirs:
On May 15 Canada was sold "down the river" and democracy went with her, perhaps forever. This colossus of a government however, does not fear any adverse fate because it knows, as past elections have proved, that Canadians are incapable of moral indignation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member whether it is his intention to make a complaint against the newspaper?


Colin Cameron: I am calling it to your attention and to the attention of the house for some action in the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member himself going to take any action in this matter?


Colin Cameron: I am taking action now, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to take action in the matter he will be good enough to proceed, but he is not going to raise the matter as a question of privilege merely to delay the proceedings.


George Clyde Nowlan: Perish the thought!


Colin Cameron: I presume some kind of action must be placed on the order paper with regard-


Mr. Speaker:: No. If the hon. member complains about a newspaper, the procedure is to send the newspaper to the Clerk so he can read it and it will be inserted in the Votes and Proceedings, and he must conclude with a motion that the content of the article is of a malicious intent, in contempt of parliament and a breach of privilege and therefore deserves the censure of this house.


Colin Cameron: My proper order is to send this to the Clerk of the house now, is it?


Mr. Speaker:: Provided that the hon. member wishes to go through with the motion I have indicated.


Colin Cameron: I have called this to the attention of Your Honour and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must understand that if he wishes to make a complaint against a newspaper he must, on a question of privilege, do it in the proper manner, and that is not to stand up only and call it to my attention, but to send the paper to the Clerk who will stand up and read the paragraph complained of, which will be inserted in the Votes and Proceedings; and the hon. member must conclude his question with a motion stating that the article complained of is in breach of privilege and deserves the censure of this house.


Colin Cameron: Yes, I will do that. Do I sent this to the Clerk now, Your Honour? Do I read it first?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was going to indicate what is the paragraph he is complaining of.


Colin Cameron: It is the whole letter.
On May 15 Canada was sold "down the river" and democracy went with her, perhaps forever.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Colin Cameron: House of Commons
On both occasions the Speaker's words seem to imply that if the rules get seriously in the way of doing something the government very much wants done, no reasonable person can expect the government to follow them, or the Speaker to enforce them, at any rate after a certain point.
What would anyone think of a hockey referee who asked, "How long am I to allow the visiting team to score goals? How many goals must I allow them to try for before I let the home team have a chance?"
Not in such a spirit did Speaker White interpret his duty in 1896, when the Liberals blocked the remedial bill, nor Mr. Speaker Marcil in 1911, when the Conservatives blocked the reciprocity agreement, nor Mr. Speaker Sproule in 1912-13, when the Liberals blocked the naval bill for four months, till the house itself changed the rules and provided for closure.
Giving notice of closure at the very outset of a debate, before a single member except the mover had uttered a syllable, whether of support or criticism, is a shameless prostitution of the closure rule for purposes for which it was never intended (and has never before been used), an unparalleled violation of parliamentary rights, an unexampled assault upon the very citadel of free institutions. But at least it is within the letter of the rules. At least the rules themselves remain, for the protection of such vestiges of free discussion as still survive. But if the rules themselves are to be interpreted to allow only such procedure, or so many motions, as the government sees fit to put up with, then we shall indeed have said farewell, a long farewell to parliamentary government.
Eugene Forsey.
3 Lakeview Terrace,
Ottawa, May 28, 1956.
Mr. Speaker, I move that these statements in the newspaper are derogatory of the dignity of parliament and deserving of the censure of this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, Eugene won't like
that, M.J.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be kind enough to permit the Clerk to read the articles complained of?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the Clerk reads the two articles complained of, would the hon. member for Nanaimo be kind enough to put his motion in writing and send it to the Chair and also indicate who is his seconder?
The Clerk: (Reading:)
About Closure, the Speaker, and Rights of Parliament
A Letter to the Editors of the Journal
Sirs:-Amid the many extraordinary features of the recent proceedings on the pipe-line bill not the least extraordinary is one that seems to have passed almost unnoticed-the strange conception of the purpose of the rules of the house, and the functions of the Speaker, suggested by two rhetorical questions asked by the present Speaker.
The first question was on May 14. Mr. Knowles was pointing out that in 1927 Mr. Dunning had used a certain procedure which required the

unanimous consent of the house. The Speaker interrupted him: "Would the hon. member be good enough to say what the minister could have done if the answer to his request for unanimous consent had been 'no'?" (Hansard, p. 3849).
Mr. Knowles replied by asking "whether that is a good question". This is a classic of understatement. It was a fantastically irrelevant and improper question. What the minister could have done if the rules of the house prevented him from taking the step he wanted to take is the minister's problem, not the Speaker's. It is, or should be, wholly outside the range of that officer's consideration.
The second question came on May 23. Mr. Fulton had moved a motion to give certain instructions to the committee of the whole. The Speaker ruled that such a motion could properly be moved at this particular point, but that Mr. Fulton's motion was out of order for other reasons. Mr. Knowles then moved a second motion of the same kind. The Speaker admitted his right to do so. But he asked, rather plaintively (p. 4260), "How long am I going to act as if the Minister of Trade and Commerce should not have his motion put forward from the chair and therefore should not be recognized at all, so as to give how many hon. members the chance to move many intervening motions in the meantime?"
The answer is, of course, "Forever, if the motions are in order; not one minute if they are not". What other answer can there be? The rules are there. It is the Speaker's duty to enforce them, let the chips fall where they may. If this prevents the government from doing what it wants to do, it is just too bad for the government, but it is or should be a matter of complete indifference to the Speaker. If the rules are defective then the house can change them. Till it does the Speaker must enforce them as they are. He has no choice, unless he is to be recreant to his duty and his trust. As Mr. Knowles put it (p. 4260), "If one motion of instruction is in order at this particular time, inconvenient though it may be to my hon. friends opposite, literally any number of such motions may be made provided they meet the conditions that you yourself have laid down."
The Speaker seems to have been genuinely surprised by this. "Am I", he asked, "going to delay the proposal of the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce if there are four, five, six or seven motions for instructions?" (p. 4261). The answer is, "Yes; certainly; if they are in order, four, five, six, seven, 50; if they are not in order, none." It is as simple as that.
On both occasions the Speaker's words seem to imply that if the rules get seriously in the way of doing something the government very much wants done, no reasonable person can expect the government to follow them, or the Speaker to enforce them at any rate after a certain point.
What would anyone think of a hockey referee who asked, "How long am I to allow the visiting team to score goals? How many goals must I allow them to try for before I let the home team have a chance?"
Not in such a spirit did Mr. Speaker White interpret his duty in 1896, when the Liberals blocked the remedial bill, nor Mr. Speaker Marcil in 1911, when the Conservatives blocked the reciprocity agreement, nor Mr. Speaker Sproule in 1912-13, when the Liberals blocked the naval bill for four months, till the house itself changed the rules and provided for closure.
Giving notice of closure at the very outset of a debate, before a single member except the mover had uttered a syllable, whether of support or criticism, is a shameless prostitution of the closure rule for purposes for which it was never intended

(and has never before been used), an unparalleled violation of parliamentary rights, an unexampled assault upon the very citadel of free institutions. But at least it is within the letter of the rules. At least the rules themselves remain, for the protection of such vestiges of free discussion as still survive. But if the rules themselves are to be interpreted to allow only such procedure, or so many motions, as the government sees fit to put up with, then we shall indeed have said farewell, a long farewell, to parliamentary government.
Eugene Forsey,
3 Lakeview Terrace,
Ottawa, May 28, 1956.
They Will Pay
Sirs:-On May 15 Canada was sold "down the river" and democracy went with her, perhaps forever. This colossus of a government, however, does not fear any adverse fate because it knows, as past elections have proved, that Canadians are incapable of moral indignation.
There is no scandal big enough to shock the Canadian people. Shackled by an inertia sedulously cultivated by a wartime government, transfixed by their T.V., captivated by their comics, eager only for their monthly baby bonus (soothing syrup divine), they are completely indifferent to the political scene and the methods employed by their rulers.
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, making a mockery of this democracy for which so many of their fathers have died. They cannot see that for this they will pay, and in coinage even more bitter than that just minted on parliament hill.
Marjorie Le Lacheur, Marlborough Avenue,
Ottawa, May 27, 1956.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo),
seconded by Mr. Ellis, has moved that the statements in the Ottawa Journal of May 30 and 31, as just read by the Clerk, are derogatory of the dignity of parliament and deserve the censure of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this is a debatable motion. The letters which have been brought to your attention do raise serious issues, which issues it seems appropriate, by whatever means they are brought forward, should be under the consideration of the house. On the other hand, I think hon. members should examine these letters most carefully because in their examination I think they will find the extent to which the proceedings of this house have in large measure justified criticism of the nature of that put on the record here tonight.
Your Honour, as well as every member, must be concerned about the references to the conduct of proceedings in this house, but I submit that the statements in the last letter 67509-288
House of Commons
read, strong though they are, do not exceed the reality of what has taken place in this house. When the letter speaks of the shameless prostitution of the proceedings of the house I think those are appropriate words. They are particularly appropriate words in relation to what has taken place in this house today.
I think in considering the effect of these letters, that consideration should be given to the extent to which justification has been furnished by what did occur. It is very noticeable that hon. members opposite have not been extremely happy in their acceptance of the application of some of the rules which have been properly applied this evening in this house.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


An hon. Member:: Perfectly satisfied.


George Alexander Drew: Do I gather that some members opposite do not think the rules were properly applied?


An hon. Member:: Nobody said that.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do raise a point of order now that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has made that inquiry. 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 must then put the motion. If that is so then I suggest that nothing can happen until-


William Earl Rowe: You have thrown the rules
away.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.
Normally when a member brings to the attention of the house an article which concerns privilege and in which someone in the house is involved, after he has made his motion it is up to the other member involved to be heard. If hon. members care to debate this matter before I myself am heard on the

House of Commons
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 Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate.


Some hon. Members:: You cannot do it. You have not the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax cannot make this motion because he is not in possession of the floor at the moment.


William Earl Rowe: He will have difficulty in keeping possession of his seat.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in considering what has been placed before the house it would be well to examine carefuly exactly what has been said. It has been read to us first of all by the hon. member who brought it forward and then by the Clerk of the house, but I say that amongst the other things that are said here there are statements which I think very properly describe the situation in this house. In examining this and considering what should be done, I think hon. members should regard the actual wording and consider how closely and how accurately they interpret the situation here. This letter says there has been, and I quote the words:
.	. . an unparalleled violation of parliamentary
rights, an unexampled assault upon the very citadel of free institutions.
I subscribe to that statement without any hesitation. Certainly in examining this letter I hope no one will suggest that those words do not accurately describe what has taken place earlier and particularly what took place today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh; from the opposition!


George Alexander Drew: I hear hon. members opposite shouting "Shame."


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: These are the hon. members who have supported the deliberate attempt to destroy the rights of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, there has been a carefully planned-


Some hon. Members:: By you.


George Alexander Drew: -and deliberate attempt to destroy-


Some hon. Members:: By you.


George Alexander Drew: -the citadel of our free institutions. I hear hon. members saying "by you." I would point out to the hon. members
fMr. Speaker.]
that under rule 32 they are all free to debate this motion and make their comments, and I hope that each one of them will get up and try to show some justifiable grounds for the declaration-


Mr. Speaker:: 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 Mrs. 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.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask a question on a point of order? Is that correct? Is that not more or less an attack on the house, and therefore are not hon. members entitled to discuss not only the matter of privilege regarding yourself, Your Honour, but also the privileges of the members of the house? Surely some of them may be considered by members of the house to be not only an attack on the Speaker but an attack on the privileges of members of the house, and therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: 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 criticizing 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.
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 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. 1 repeat the suggestion I made earlier, that this matter for the moment be adjourned.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker; with deference, I do not believe this should be adjourned. This matter has been brought before the house, the motion that has been presented is debatable, and I think this is the proper time to discuss the material that has been brought forward. There is, after all, nothing in the rules to indicate that such a discussion of a motion of this kind should be adjourned. I was referring to certain words in the letter that has been referred to, and I feel that, with respect to any decision that may be made, it is proper that hon. members should make some comments about this.
The letters have been placed before you, and certainly it must be a matter of concern to the members to form their own judgment as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statements that are made. Otherwise they could not properly pass judgment upon what has been said here. I had quoted a certain part in regard to the assault upon the very citadel of free institutions. The letter went on to say:
But at least it is within the letter of the rules. At least the rules themselves remain, for the protection of such vestiges of free discussion as still survive.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have seen here tonight certain arguments being put forward.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the Leader of the Opposition be good enough to take into account the remark I made a moment ago, namely that remarks should be addressed only to the paragraphs which in my view are considered privileged. He cannot discuss the proceedings of today. He must address himself to the paragraphs in the documents that have been submitted that have been complained of and are considered privileged. We are not interested in any other matters.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it is not only Your Honour who is concerned with what is said in these letters. It is every member of this house; and the conduct of this house is quite as important as the status of any individual or anything that may be said about the performance by any individual of his duties in this house, whatever those duties may be. I am not inclined to think that once matters of this kind have been placed before the house it can be said that only those things that refer to Your Honour are subjects which should be of concern to hon. members.
67509-288J
House of Commons


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I say only those matters which relate to privilege, and who decides what is privilege and what is not?


George Alexander Drew: Then, Mr. Speaker, I am of course dealing with the last letter that was referred to, which is published in tonight's Ottawa Journal, and I would refer to the comments that are made there with regard to a motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It speaks of the fact that this motion was presented. Then the letter goes on to say:
The Speaker admitted his right to do so. But he asked, rather plaintively (p. 4260), "How long am I going to act as if the Minister of Trade and Commerce should not have his motion put forward from the chair and therefore should not be recognized at all, so as to give how many hon. members the chance to move many intervening motions in the meantime?"
The answer is, of course, "Forever, if the motions are in order; not one minute if they are not." What other answer can there be? The rules are there. It is the Speaker's duty to enforce them, let the chips fall where they may. If this prevents the government from doing what it wants to do, it is just too bad for the government, but it is or should be a matter of complete indifference to the Speaker. If the rules are defective then the house can change them. Till it does the Speaker must enforce them as they are. He has no choice, unless he is to be recreant to his duty and his trust.
These statements, Mr. Speaker, refer as a matter of privilege to the position of Your Honour, and I should think they accurately state the position as it affects Your Honour. There can be no question about the right of any hon. member to use the rights that are available to him under the rules. In this particular case a question had been raised whether motions should be permitted, and there was some difference of opinion whether further motions could be presented. I submit that in this case what has been discussed here is a perfectly proper discussion of procedure in this house.
I think it is highly desirable that the position of Your Honour and the position of the other officials should be respected and should be positions of honour and trust. I submit, however, that it is neither improper nor an offence to this house for any member of this house to discuss the proceedings in the house in the way in which they have been discussed here, and I think what has been said can well be repeated.
If the rules are defective then the house can change them. Till it does the Speaker must enforce them as they are. He has no choice, unless he is to be recreant to his duty and his trust.
In view of those words, which I believe correctly set forth the situation, I must admit that I do not see how it would be reasonable for the hon. members of this house to condemn a letter such as the one to which I am

House of Commons
referring, no matter what may be the purpose of any hon. member who brings forward a motion of this kind. I must say that I think the letter written to the Journal by Mr. Eugene Forsey and published in tonight's edition is an excellent letter summing up this situation as well as it has been summed up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Habel:: A foe becomes a friend.


George Alexander Drew: I am sorry, I did not hear what the hon. member said.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: A foe becomes a friend.


George Alexander Drew: There must be some cloud in the sound. I cannot hear well.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You have mentioned a name and asked a question.


George Alexander Drew: I am anxious to hear what the hon. member said.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You have mentioned the name of Mr. Forsey. I say that a former foe becomes a friend of yours.


George Alexander Drew: Oh.


William Earl Rowe: We have a lot of your friends coming to us now. You are losing them every day.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have never hesitated to express my admiration for anything that has been done by those who may be opposed to me politically when I have believed they were worthy of commendation. Mr. Eugene Forsey was an opponent of mine in a by-election in Carleton, but that does not prevent me from expressing my approval of what he has said in the letter published in tonight's Journal and saying that I heartily concur in the general comments in that letter.
As it is now ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Drew the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue with the pipe-line debate tomorrow, sir.


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