1964-03-18

Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Minister of Labour has a communication he wishes to make at this time.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed today by the chairman of the board of trustees, Hon. Mr. Justice V. L. Dryer, that after long consideration of the affairs and interests of the S.I.U. of Canada and of the maritime industry, the trustees have determined that it is not in the interests of that union, of the shipping industry of Canada nor of the public at large that Mr. H. C. Banks remain in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Accordingly, and in keeping with the powers given to them by parliament under the Maritime Transportation Unions Trustees Act, the trustees have today removed Mr. Banks from the position he has occupied as president of the S.I.U. of Canada. The trustees have named Mr. Charles Turner, a former officer and still a member of the brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks, freight handlers and express and station employees, who has been on the staff of the board of trustees for two months, to serve as president of the S.I.U. of Canada. He will continue in this position until other arrangements are made. Mr. Charles H. Millard has moved into the offices in the S.I.U. of Canada building in Montreal, and the union will be administered under his direct supervision. The trustees will continue their overall direction of the five unions under trusteeship.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: We have listened with interest, Mr. Speaker, to the statement made by the Minister of Labour. I recall that yesterday I posed a question to the minister as to whether there was any truth in the allegation that Mr. Banks would be relieved of his position as president of the S.I.U. in accordance with an agreement between the S.I.U., the United States government and the Canadian government. The minister said yesterday he was not aware of
this situation. It seems to me that there must have been more truth than fiction in the rumour that was prevalent as late as yesterday. I am also led to believe that the minister is not revealing all the facts with regard to this situation and that the Ottawa government must have played some part in connection with the decision in this matter.
I believe that most of us who were in the house when the trustees were appointed felt that they would carry out the recommendations of the Norris report, because it was as a result of those recommendations that the trusteeship was originally established. The purpose was to settle the situation on the great lakes. However, the trustees, until this action today, have not felt it was necessary to follow the Norris recommendations, and this has led to dissatisfaction on the part of many people who have felt that in order to clean up the great lakes situation the trustees should in fact follow the Norris recommendations.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: am sure all members of the house greeted the announcement made by the minister with a good deal of enthusiasm. It is certainly a first step that has been needed for a long time. I wonder if the minister would give consideration to calling the industrial relations committee together at an early date so that members could get further reports from the board of trustees about their future plans for rectifying other matters upon which action is needed.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Speaker, the house obviously expected that the time would come when the Minister of Labour would announce the expulsion of Mr. Banks as president of the seafarers' union after all that has been going on for a certain number of years.
On the other hand, the Minister of Labour also announced the appointment of a president who will take over the administration of the union. That president was appointed by the trustees. I would therefore have a reservation to make about that appointment. I should like it to be ratified by a general meeting of all members of the union concerned, because even if it is justified, that action on the part of the trustees is still subject to the approval of the workers concerned.

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker
I think the Minister of Labour would do well to bring that remark to the attention of the trustees so that they may have the appointment approved as soon as possible to protect the democratic rights of S.I.U. members.


Mr. Heal Caoueiie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, nobody in Canada will take exception to the decision made by the trustees of the S.I.U. with regard to Hal Banks who, I am quite sure, does not deserve anybody's confidence in Canada and more particularly that of the members of the S.I.U.
However, I endorse the remark just made by the hon. member for Lake St. John to the effect that the appointment of the new president, Mr. Turner, goes a little beyond the democratic spirit that should prevail in a labour union and that this appointment should be ratified as soon as possible by the union itself.
At all events, the removal of Hal Banks will benefit every really democratic union in our country.



MOTION OF NON-CONFIDENCE IN DEPUTY SPEAKER

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe) moved:: That, in view of the unacceptable actions of the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Stormont, during the sitting on Friday, March 13, 1964, from 8 to 10 p.m.
(1)	In transgressing a standing order of the house which requires that unanimous consent be given to waive the obligation for two days' notice of the presentation of a resolution prescribed by standing order 41;
(2)	In transgressing standing order 42 of the house which requires that the member who presents a motion of urgency, with the unanimous consent of the house, without notice thereof as required in standing order 41, must previously explain the urgency of the same; and
(3)	In depriving certain members of the house of a right and privilege recognized by standing orders;
For these reasons, be it resolved that the Deputy Speaker no longer has the confidence of this house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a motion which is serious and also very rare in the House of Commons. It is a nonconfidence motion against the Deputy Speaker for his conduct of last Friday, March 13, from 8 to 10 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, I shall try to introduce our arguments and evidence in as realistic a way as possible and without feelings of hatred or hostility, and to state the facts as objectively as possible for the information of members of this house.

That happened, as we know, when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) presented a motion recommending the sending of Canadian troops to Cyprus through the United Nations.
Personally, I was in favour of the Prime Minister's motion, but I did not approve the procedure followed that evening. Therefore, my criticism is aimed today not at the motion itself but at the procedure.
Let us go over the facts. In the course of the debate on supplementary estimates, the country's Prime Minister walked into the house in the afternoon and asked for unanimous consent to revert to motions, as reported on page 892, left hand column, of Hansard for March 13, 1964.
The first point on which I call the attention of the house is that immediately after the Prime Minister asked permission to revert to motions, the Acting Speaker, Mr. Batten, rose and asked:
Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?
And hon. members replied:
Agreed.
I should like the hon. members of the house to take good note of what happened. The Acting Speaker took the trouble to rise and ask whether the Prime Minister had the unanimous consent of the house.
The Prime Minister then rose and, on motions, as can be found on page 892 of Hansard, he said:
If this announcement is received from New York before 6 p.m. I shall ask for unanimous consent for the house to consider this afternoon and this evening, if necessary, a resolution approving Canadian participation in the United Nations peace keeping force in the manner described in the resolution.
So the Prime Minister told the house that he would be asking unanimous consent to sit in order to discuss a resolution approving Canadian participation in the United Nations force.
That was the purpose of the Prime Minister's motion. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), as he had a right to, agreed to give unanimous consent on behalf of his party, and so did the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). It was also the same in the case of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson).
But the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) rose at that time and said, as can be seen on page 894 of Hansard:
I am entirely against the Canadian parliament being asked to sit this evening or tomorrow, or to hold a special sitting-
Mark these words-
-in order to consider whether troops should be sent to Cyprus or to that continent.

It is quite clear that the hon. member for Villeneuve, speaking on behalf of the other members of this group, was objecting to unanimous consent of the house being given to consider a motion to send Canadian troops to Cyprus, and therefore a 48 hours' notice was required before it could be discussed.
Mr. Speaker, there you have the initial facts, or what happened in the afternoon.
Now, let us see what took place in the evening. It was therefore obvious that unanimous consent had not been given in the afternoon to the presentation of such a motion or such a resolution without 48 hours' notice. Consequently, members left, as many of them usually do, around five o'clock p.m. to catch the last train or the last plane to their respective constituencies. That is why, as far as our group is concerned, there were only three of us in the house in the evening and that was not enough to ask for a vote on the Deputy Speaker's decision. However, I would point out that 150 members were absent from the house on that night, so that members from all parties were absent.
After recess the Prime Minister introduced a resolution without giving the required 48 hours' notice, as required by standing order 41. The Prime Minister introduced his resolution at the very beginning of the sitting. He did not ask for the unanimous consent of the house. To support this statement I shall first of all quote from page 954 of the French text of the debates of Friday last, and I shall thereafter quote the English text because there is a distinction to be made in the translation. He said:
Je demande a proposer, appuye par mon collegue le secretaire d'Etat aux Affaires exterieures (M. Martin), la resolution suivante:
He did not request unanimous consent of the house; he gave nobody an opportunity to refuse or accept that consent. He simply said:
Je demande h proposer, appuye par mon col-lfegue-
The English text is not exactly the same or has not exactly the same meaning. On page 910 of the English debates, in the right hand side column, it says:


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) :: By leave, I wish to move, seconded by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs-

He therefore did not ask for the unanimous consent of the house. He simply said: by leave, I wish to move-
Mr. Speaker, between the moment he said he wished, by leave, to move a motion and the motion itself, there was not even one second. There was not a single indication of approval or disapproval. He just went on.
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker Even after the motion was read, he did not stop a second. He just added his explanations. After four lines in the French text, and five lines in the English text, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger), interrupted and asked-this is on page 911 of Hansard:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Do the rules of the house allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to bring forward a motion without having received beforehand the unanimous consent of the house?
Then, the Deputy Speaker answered-this is still in the same column:
The Prime Minister asked for leave to present the motion and he is proceeding on that basis.
And, somebody having risen to say:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker added:
The Prime Minister asked for leave, there was no objection, and he proceeded with his remarks.
I point out that no one in this house was given the opportunity to raise an objection and that the Deputy Speaker who was then in the chair did not ask whether anyone had any objection to raise or whether there was unanimous consent, and the Prime Minister himself had not asked whether there was unanimous consent.
At that time again, we raised an objection. Immediately after that statement from the Deputy Speaker the hon. member for Charlevoix rose and said:
Mr. Speaker, we want to place our objection on record. We do not agree to the Prime Minister proceeding with this motion.
Mr. Speaker, before going any further, I should like to call your attention to one thing. When the hon. member for Charlevoix rose to put his objection on record, barely 14 seconds had elapsed between the moment when the Prime Minister finished reading his motion and the time when he started his explanations, only 14 seconds between the moment when he was allowed to read his motion and the moment when the hon. member for Charlevoix stood up. As evidence, Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of the house to check on their watch the exact time the hon. member for Charlevoix would have taken before objecting after the reading of the motion.
I shall read in English what the Prime Minister took time to say:

In speaking to this resolution I should like to begin by telling the house that while the situation on the island of Cyprus has deteriorated to a point at which there is grave danger of conflict-even greater conflict-

Mr. Speaker, exactly 14 seconds.

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker


An hon. Member:: Sixteen seconds.
Another hon. Member: Fifteen seconds.


Gilles Grégoire: Fourteen seconds. Someone said it was 16 seconds and another one 15 seconds. Let us say 15 seconds, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You read too fast.


Gilles Grégoire: -I would like you to note that if somebody from another corner of the house had risen when I raised the point of order, at least five to six seconds would have elapsed before the Speaker recognized that other member, which means that the margin is reduced to ten seconds. There is another thing I would point out, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) made use of his earphones to listen to the interpretation of the explanations which the Prime Minister gave immediately after introducing his motion, and when he had grasped the subject matter of the Prime Minister's speech by means of the interpretation and the earphones four or five additional seconds may have elapsed, which would mean that the hon. member for Charlevoix would have let five or six seconds pass between the moment when the Prime Minister finished reading his motion and the instant he rose to object, and the Prime Minister never asked the unanimous consent of the house.
Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. An hon. member had hardly five to six seconds to rise and register his disagreement in respect of the unanimous consent. The hon. member for Charlevoix could not rise before the right hon. Prime Minister's motion was read out, because it would have been illogical to do so. If the right hon. Prime Minister had risen to introduce a motion tending to increase family allowances, the hon. member for Charlevoix would not have opposed its being introduced immediately. If there had been a request for unanimous consent to consider a motion concerning unemployment, the hon. member for Charlevoix would not have objected. This is why the Prime Minister had to be granted the necessary time to read his motion, to see if unanimous consent should be granted or not. Once the motion was read, the hon. member for Charlevoix rose and objected; he indicated his disagreement to the unanimous consent scarcely five or six seconds after the reading of the motion had started.
If we consider that the hon. member for Charlevoix should have risen as soon as the Prime Minister had finished saying: "By leave, I move", the hon. member for Charlevoix would only have taken two seconds to object.


Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member had placed his objection on record I rose in my turn to make a few remarks and take exception to the procedure followed. Here is what the Deputy Speaker said, as reported on page 911 of Hansard:
The Chair already made a ruling in this respect. The Prime Minister preceded his remarks by saying that he had a motion to submit with the consent of the house.
As no objection was raised, the Chair suggested that the Prime Minister be given the opportunity to continue his remarks.
As we have just seen, five or six seconds after the Prime Minister had begun his remarks, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Belanger) having risen, the Deputy Speaker said this:
I can only repeat the ruling which I made a moment ago. We have already initiated the procedure-
And mark these words:
-with the unanimous consent of the house, since no objection has been made.
Is this the unanimous consent of the house when no objection has been made? Hardly five or six seconds had elapsed since the Prime Minister had started to speak.
Mr. Speaker, those are facts which speak for themselves. I maintain that in those circumstances, the position taken by the Deputy Speaker was unaccountable and inconsistent with standing order 41. I shall now sum up the three points of my motion.
Standing order 41 provides that in order to introduce a motion without giving 48 hours' notice, the unanimous consent of the house is required. The right hon. Prime Minister never did ask for unanimous consent. The Chair did not ask whether the Prime Minister had unanimous consent, as is always done. I have been a member for nearly two years now and when a minister, a member or the right hon. Prime Minister rose to present a motion without having given 48 hours' notice, or any motion requiring 48 hours' notice or unanimous consent of the house, the Deputy Speaker or the committee chairman has always stood and asked: "Does the Prime Minister or the hon. member have unanimous consent of the house?" However, that evening, that procedure was not followed.
The hon. member for Charlevoix raised an objection as soon as he could. I have just shown that five or six seconds may have elapsed between the time the Prime Minister got to his feet and the moment he started to explain his motion.
One cannot raise an objection against a motion unless one knows what it is all about. That is precisely what the hon. member for Charlevoix did. He protested as soon as he

knew what the motion dealt with, that is five or six seconds after reading of the motion had begun.
I claim that the Deputy Speaker took an unfortunate and inexplicable attitude that evening, a prejudiced and partial position. I proved it by quoting from his own remarks which appear in Hansard.
The Prime Minister asked leave to present the motion and he proceeded on that basis.
The Deputy Speaker stated that no objection had been raised and later on he said this:
The Prime Minister preceded his remarks by saying that he had a motion to submit-
He said that the Prime Minister preceded his remarks by saying that he had a motion to submit with the consent of the house.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what the Prime Minister said:
By leave, I wish to move, seconded by my colleague-
He did not ask the unanimous consent of the house.
Therefore, that evening, in spite of the objections raised in our corner, the members were denied their rights and privileges by the Deputy Speaker, in order to comply with the wishes of the right hon. Prime Minister.
And here the Prime Minister himself, by his statement, admits that he is not sure of having unanimous consent of the house. Here is what he said as reported on page 911, left hand column:
I began my remarks by asking for leave to present this motion and I had the understanding-
He simply says:
-I had the understanding-
He does not state that he had the unanimous consent of the house.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself, by his silence that evening, admitted implicitly that he had not secured the unanimous consent of the house. He began by saying:
I would not have ventured to ask for the leave of the house to bring forward this motion had I not been convinced by information I have received that there has been a very serious deterioration in the situation on the island of Cyprus.
He had the floor at that time, but he never said or admitted that he had the unanimous consent of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I say that the Prime Minister never asked-and we can find evidence of this in Hansard-nor received the unanimous consent of the house, despite the statements of the Deputy Speaker to that effect.
The second paragraph of my resolution concerns standing order 42 which stipulates that when an hon. member wishes to move a motion in case of urgent and pressing necessity-and the issue we considered that
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker evening was a case of urgent and pressing necessity-he can do so by unanimous consent of the house, without notice having been given under standing order 41, provided the mover explained the urgency beforehand.
Now, the Prime Minister did not prove the urgency of the resolution before asking the unanimous consent of the house. The Deputy Speaker, whose responsibility it was to apply the standing orders, did not call him to order and did not ask him to explain the urgency of his motion. And as can be seen on pages 922 and 923 of the official report, I pointed out this fact to the Deputy Speaker who disregarded what I said.
With regard to the third part of our resolution, I submit that hon. members' privileges were ignored and transgressed that evening.
First of all, an hon. member can object to unanimous consent in a case such as the one we were facing that evening. Then, his objection has the same value, regardless of where he sits in the house, whether it is the hon. member for Charlevoix, the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), or any other member of the house, or even a minister who makes the objection. In fact, when a member objects to the introduction of a motion, without a previous notice of 48 hours, in short when he refuses to agree to such a procedure, his non-acceptance is just as imperative as that of a member of any party in this house.
Second, we must admit that some members sit quite far from the Speaker so that it takes them a little longer to be seen and recognized. And in this case, that was the situation Friday night; five or six seconds elapsed and the Deputy Speaker should have taken them into consideration.
Third, there is the matter of simultaneous interpretation which we get through our earphones. We have referred to that matter here on many occasions. In fact, as reported on page 916 of Hansard, we pointed out that the interpretation always reached us a few seconds late. But in spite of the fact that we mentioned that point to the Deputy Speaker, he did not take it into account. And yet, we have been saying so on several occasions in the house.
_ Mr. Speaker, I think that I have sufficiently made my point and in conclusion, I wish to say that last Friday, we witnessed some unacceptable actions of several persons in this house.
In my opinion, the first to be blamed is the Prime Minister of the country who has violated the rights of the hon. members.
In the afternoon, the Prime Minister had asked the unanimous consent of the house to introduce the resolution that evening. He
1208	HOUSE OF
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker knew at that time that he could not get the unanimous consent of the house. He knew that there were members who would object.
Moreover, the Prime Minister acted in such a way that no member of this house could exercise his rights. He asked for permission to introduce his motion, he put it forward and then continued with his comments without giving anybody a chance to use his privileges.
In order to be polite, we let the Prime Minister put forward his motion, but he did not give anyone the chance to say whether or not he objected. He knew that some members of our group were opposed to it, but despite all that, despite the fact that he knew since early in the afternoon that there was opposition, he came back with his motion and did not give anybody a chance to put forth his objections.
In my opinion, the Prime Minister knew what would happen. He acted in such a way that the rights of hon. members be not recognized and that they could have no opportunity to exercise their privileges in the house. I believe that he should be the first to blame in all this.
Mr. Speaker, others should also be blamed. All the members who were in the house that evening, and especially those who are always particularly aware of the rules, those who protest against the smallest breach of the rules, when that serves their purpose or when such intervention can favour their cause. But, as this did not favour their cause, they did not do it that evening.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had intended to raise an objection, he would have raised it, but that evening he did not, he remained in his seat and did not say a word. But he was the first on his feet to give advice to the Prime Minister on procedure and application of standing orders, especially regarding the rule for exemption from obtaining unanimous consent of the house to carry on the debate. But when the rights of members were ignored, the member for Winnipeg North Centre did not rise, nor did the leader of the official opposition, who has always been a great upholder of parliamentary procedure in the house. This also applies to the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and the member for Edmonton West or East, I forget now, the former speaker of the house (Mr. Lambert), and to all the others who are so sensitive about standing orders. That evening, however, none of them stood up, they all remained seated, without saying a word. I think they are partly to blame because of the silence they have observed.
[Mr. Gregoire.I


Mr. Lambert:: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member and the house to the fact that I was not in the city of Ottawa on Friday and could not be present at that time.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I beg the hon.
member for Edmonton West's pardon, but on the other hand, I should thank him because he gave hon. members an opportunity to notice that between the moment he rose to put his question of privilege, and the moment you recognized him, seven or eight seconds elapsed, which gives point to my argument of a while ago.


Norman Platt Lambert: I do not speak as fast as you.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, last Friday night, the hon. members who were in the house, not only the ones I identified a while ago, but also the others, created for themselves a special atmosphere and in order to achieve their purpose, they preferred to turn a deaf ear and keep silent on the breaking of the rules which happened that evening.
Another offender was the Deputy Speaker whose mission is to be non-partisan and respectful of the rights of hon. members, whether they be members of the opposition, of any group, or of the government. He is the guardian and the defender of the rules of the house. He should have been above the developments of the urgency resolution and see to it that the rights and privileges of hon. members be respected, which was not done.
That omission is all the more serious that in spite of our representations, the Deputy Speaker transgressed his mandate and scorned the nobility of his office.
It is true that we might have another party in power tomorrow, or another one the next day, but if we put up with such a situation, we should be ashamed of ourselves, because we will stand in danger of a degradation of the rights and privileges of hon. members and also of the standing orders of the house.
Mr. Speaker, we all have the responsibility to hold very high the nobility and the dignity of the office of the Speaker. And that omission is even more serious for us, because the two years we were here, was the first time we witnessed such a situation.
I always considered and I still consider the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Stormont, to be a gentleman, an amiable and respectable person-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: -but his error is fatal. Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to repeat: I always considered the hon. member for Stormont as a gentleman, but, unfortunately such an error cannot be ignored, especially in the circumstances which prevailed that night. And the lesson to be drawn from this instance should serve coming generations, and if not, the illustration we saw may also serve future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced this motion without bitterness and without hatred or enmity against anybody whatsoever. In fact, some hon. members may be more to blame than the Deputy Speaker. On the other hand, perhaps part of the blame rests on ourselves, in which case, we are ready to accept the blame. We also wish the facts to be known and we want the opposition parties, especially the minor ones, to be assured that their rights and privileges will be guaranteed in future, otherwise, we shall not know exactly where we are going.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances I would not participate in the debate. However, during the course of his remarks the hon. member for Lapointe chose to bring me within the ambit of his criticism. Indeed, he covered practically every member of the house.
For that reason I think some reference should be made to the motion. After all, as Leader of the Opposition, as the Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion, I am an officer of this house.
All through the years I have been one of those who have strongly stood against the actions of any government which would trample on the rights and privileges of the opposition. I took that view not only when in opposition but also when we enjoyed an overwhelming majority in the house. My desire has been at all times to preserve inviolate the rights and privileges of minorities in this chamber. If we should allow action to be taken that is contrary to the privileges and rules of parliament, then indeed it will not be very long before the rights of private members are lost. I preface what I have to say by these general observations.
I was here on Friday afternoon and evening. I listened to the arguments that were advanced. I think, in retrospect, there is no member of this house who will not frankly admit that an error was made on Friday. It is just like the law. Over and over again we become bound by precedents which have arisen for good objectives. Bad law is often made by judges who are endeavouring to
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker achieve abstract justice, and then the pathway of today becomes the highway of precedent of tomorrow. All of us wanted to do our part to assure th,at Canada would discharge her responsibilities. This could have been done in the regular way with full regard to the rights of parliament. I would say more than this if the Prime Minister were here today, but he is absent I know for good and sufficient reasons.
Following the argument before lunch time, it had been made clear that unanimous consent was not required for the house to sit at eight o'clock on Friday night. There was no discussion regarding the requirement of unanimity for the presentation of the motion made by the Prime Minister. He knew and the government knew that unanimity was required.
However strong and overwhelming the desire of the members of this house may be, when unanimity is required one, two or three can prevent the operation of the ordinary processes of the house by raising an objection. I recall one occasion many years ago when a Speaker occupying your position, sir, on a motion requiring unanimity said "All those in favour say yea, and against say nay." Then he said, "I think the yeas have the majority, and therefore I apply the rule of unanimity". This was deleted from Hansard.
I think the government was responsible for what happened. Certainly there was haste. Certainly there was a desire on the part of members generally to carry out the responsibility of this nation. I can say though, in the light of what is taking place, it is very apparent that the government chose this occasion for haste so that it might present its view to the world, having done something for the benefit of mankind. There has been a lot of boasting about it. The fact remains that any shortcomings were the shortcomings of the government. We have a co-ordinator today to assist the government at a salary of $25,000 a year, I think. Well, there have been two or three examples of what co-ordination has achieved in exchanging portfolios between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry. This must be another example. What is needed is a coordinator to co-ordinate the co-ordinator, if this action is an example of what happens under this new regime.
Having said that, let us look at the record now. The Prime Minister knew that he required leave because his first words, as recorded on page 910 of Hansard, were:
By leave, I wish to move, seconded by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs-
He had no leave. No leave had been asked for and no leave had been given. When I say

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker that, I in no way mean to imply that a refractory few should be able to hold up the operations of this house. However, these are the rules. When the rules were brought into effect, parliament was not bifurcated or trifurcated or divided into a multiplicity of opposition groups. The rules were never intended to be used to prevent the operation of those things that are desired by the overwhelming membership of the house. However, the rules are there and the Prime Minister knew them. Then the hon. member for Charlevoix raised an objection in the following words:
Do the rules of the house allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to bring forward a motion without having received beforehand the unanimous consent of the house?
The Deputy Speaker said he believed the Prime Minister asked for leave to present his motion and he was proceeding on that basis. This was the understanding of the Deputy Speaker. He thought that leave had been given. I emphasize that, and I shall deal with it later when I refer particularly to the words of the motion. I quote from the same page of Hansard where the Prime Minister is recorded as saying:
I began my remarks by asking for leave to present this motion and I had the understanding-
He did not begin his remarks by asking for leave. He simply said "By leave of the house-", In other words he implied that leave had been given. This is where the mistake began.
Now, sir, let us read the resolution that is before the house. It is to the effect that the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux), transgressed a standing order of the house. I know all of us-I say this with great respect, Mr. Speaker- at some time or other would have made a different decision than the Speaker, had we been in the chair.
Speakers are not infallible. In the courts of law-and of course this is no analogy-a dog is entitled to one bite. Surely a deputy speaker is entitled to one mistake, if a mistake was made; if we were to pass this resolution we would be condemning the Deputy Speaker on the basis that he had done something flagrantly against the rights and privileges of this house.
Because he made a mistake are we to vote in favour of a motion that says "For these reasons, be it resolved that the Deputy Speaker no longer has the confidence of this house"? Are we to condemn him because of a misunderstanding? Are we to condemn the Deputy Speaker because of the fact that it was the government that made the mistake? I will not join in that.


This is too serious a resolution. It will have a tremendous effect if passed. It amounts to censure of the Deputy Speaker for what must have been, on the basis of the discussion, a mistake made by him through the failure of the government to act as it should.
The hon. gentleman argues that there are shortcomings all around, and this is shown from the fact that he made pretty nearly all of us guilty. He pointed out one, or two, or three. Let us be frank about this. Why did we not rise, Mr. Speaker? If there had been anyone taking objection on Friday night, it would have been reported all over the free world that we were divided within this house on a matter affecting the welfare of the world.
There was no intentional infraction or breach of the rules by the Deputy Speaker. That is admitted by the hon. gentleman, because in his own words he has spread the guilt over all members in all parts of the house. In that I do not agree with him. I put it over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: With all the co-ordination they had, how could they have produced such a progeny?


Mr. Graffiey:: It is easy for them.


John George Diefenbaker: However, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the fear expressed by the hon. gentleman that this will be a precedent for the future was, to say the least, overstated. There will be no precedent in this. I would be the last to fail to rise to defend the right of one member in this house against unfairness. What took place is past. What we are now being asked to do is to place the stigma of responsibility for wrongdoing on the Deputy Speaker. That stand I will not take.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman and I have been in this house a long time together. We have had many occasions for deep controversy, and while I do not agree with all of his argument today, I hope he will permit me to say that I have never seen him uphold his views so effectively as he has done in the last few minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He has done that in a way that takes into account his understandable interest to jibe at the administration but, at the same time, preserve the integrity of a very important institution in this house, that of the presiding officer, in this instance the Deputy Speaker.

This motion calls on the house to condemn the hon. member for Stormont, in his capacity as presiding officer, sitting in the chair of His Honour the Speaker when the house was dealing on Friday night with perhaps the most important matter that has come to it in a long time.
The right hon. gentleman said that if there was an error, the error was that of the government. I hope he will permit me to say, as sincerely as he did, that the error, if there was an error-and I am not prepared to admit fully that there was-was an error shared by every hon. member of the house, including the right hon. gentleman himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Martineau:: Explain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will explain, because the Prime Minister said at eight o'clock on Friday night last, as recorded at page 910 of Hansard:
By leave. I wish to move, seconded by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs-
-a motion which would have permitted us to contribute to the international force in Cyprus. Then the Prime Minister went on to say:
In speaking to this resolution I should like to begin by telling the house that while the situation on the island of Cyprus has deteriorated to a point at which there is grave danger of conflict-even greater conflict-
As I have shown, Mr. Speaker, he had gone on speaking for some time when the hon. member for Charlevoix rose and asked:
Do the rules of the house allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to bring forward a motion without having received beforehand the unanimous consent of the house?
Now, there is no obligation in our rules requiring the use of the phrase "with unanimous consent." There is a requirement in our rules, that, in certain instances, no action can be taken by the house without unanimous consent; but if, as in this particular instance, the words used are "by leave", they can have the same implication as "with unanimous consent".
Who is there to argue that the words "by leave" in this context, in this particular situation, did not have the same meaning as the use of the words "with the unanimous consent"? In any event it is clear that the Prime Minister asked "by leave", and no one objected. I am not complaining about the failure to object on the part of anyone. I am not throwing this out as an argument to knock down what the right hon. gentleman has said. I am simply pointing to the fact that, for very good reasons, the great majority in the house felt that it was necessary to proceed.
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker
No one did object, even though any hon. gentleman could have objected. The right hon. gentleman himself might have objected. He would have had time to object. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) would have had time to object. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire), who objected later, might well have taken steps immediately to object, but he did not; and the hon. member for Charlevoix, who was the first to object, under our rules did not object in time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Gilles Grégoire: How many seconds does it take for an hon. member to object within sufficient time?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Well, I do not think my response to that would help the hon. gentleman any more than his question helps any one of us to elucidate this difficulty.
The right hon. gentleman stated something a few moments ago which I believe is quite correct. An understanding of the mood of the house is relevant to an appreciation of why the house did not register any particular objection. Why was this? It was because we were faced with a very serious situation. Word had just come from the United Nations that the security council had been advised by the secretary general that an international force was being established; and this house, true to its obligations to the United Nations charter, wanted to act with dispatch. And because we wanted to act with dispatch there was no one who was disposed to object to the Prime Minister's statement: "By leave, I wish to move-" and the following words which he used, except that the hon. member for Lapointe spoke later.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the exchanges recorded in Hansard on page 910, and subsequent pages, and on page 892 and subsequent pages at an earlier stage, clearly indicate that what I have said represents the true situation, the correct sequence of events. However, even if it should be assumed that there was an error; or that the rights of minorities were not fully protected, I would ask the house to recall the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, perhaps as authoritative a student of our procedures as any member of this house.


Mr. Knowles:: I will quote that some day.


Mr. Churchill:: Let us not re-elect him, now.


Murdo William Martin: Let us remember his comments on citation 41 and, later, on

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker citation 42 to which the hon. member for Lapointe made reference. This very point was discussed on Friday night, and the only member to deal with it, other than the hon. member for Lapointe, was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: He never dealt with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There will be an opportunity for me to speak later, but I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should keep the record straight on this point. Any intervention I made on Friday was concerned with standing order 41, and had to do with sitting at night and postponing the hour of adjournment. It had nothing to do with whether or not the motion was in order. But I will speak on that when my turn comes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. gentleman for that correction. He dealt with standing order 41. The hon. member for Lapointe had argued that there had to be 48 hours notice in respect of the motion for adjournment as well as for other-


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And, in the event, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre effectively dealt with that, as recorded at page 921.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, I never objected to the absence of 48 hours' notice with respect to altering the time of adjournment. It was just on the question of the motion, the presentation of the resolution. I wish to challenge the Secretary of State for External Affairs on that point. He will look long before finding anything to support his contention there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I was saying amounts to this, the other night the hon. gentleman insisted that citation 41, and now, today, citation 42, had an application to this situation. I was simply mentioning that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre effectively dealt on Friday night with any relevance that citation 41, requiring 48 hours' notice, might have with regard to the question before us.
But, surely, the issue has been correctly stated by the Leader of the Opposition. I deny that there was any error on the part of the administration. I do not deny we were all moved at that moment by the need to consider a vital matter affecting a threat to the peace of the world. That situation, which certainly is not a normal one, has to be borne in mind in connection with the exercise of our procedures the other night. The important consideration at this moment is that, as a result of the procedure on Friday


night, the hon. gentleman is not condemning the government; he is condemning one of the officers of this house, the Deputy Speaker, who presided over our deliberations on Friday.
Speaking for the Prime Minister, who has a slight cold and is not in his place today, I would say, as the Leader of the Opposition, as an officer of the house has said, whatever may have been the justification for condemning speakers in the course of our parliamentary history, there will not be found any precedent to warrant the present occasion as one for condemnation. Indeed, I would say that on the basis of the words referred to by the Leader of the Opposition as reported on page 911, there is clear indication that the Deputy Speaker is in no way deserving of the proposed vote of censure. For the Deputy Speaker said:
I believe the Prime Minister asked leave to present the motion and he is proceeding on that basis.
The Prime Minister said:
I began my remarks by asking for leave to present this motion and I had the understanding-
There was no immediate objection, from hon. gentlemen who sit down in the corner, to this statement by the Deputy Speaker. He said, I repeat: "I believe the Prime Minister asked leave...". No one took exception to that. The Deputy Speaker himself said he understood that the Prime Minister had asked leave and, undoubtedly, he made that statement after recalling what the Prime Minister had in fact, said: "By leave, I wish to move-" and so on.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order. I have already dealt with that aspect. About ten or 12 lines later on, as reported in Hansard, I said-and I bring this particularly to the hon. gentleman's attention:
If I am told that the Prime Minister only asks leave to make a statement, then we agree, let him do so. On the other hand, if we are told that the Prime Minister asks for the unanimous consent of the house to introduce a motion, and unanimous consent has been given by the house this is quite another matter.
I have spoken already on that point and expressed my view that the Prime Minister never asked unanimous consent or leave.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There were other points which the hon. gentleman raised. I did not deal with them because I do not believe they have any pertinence to the issue before us. What this motion seeks to do at this time is to reprimand, to express dissatisfaction, to say that the house no longer has any confidence in the Deputy Speaker. There is no evidence before us, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, to warrant such a motion. We all know that the Deputy

Speaker, one of the younger members of this house, fluent in both languages, has, by his record as a presiding officer, shown not only alertness and capacity but a sense of fairness and impartiality in keeping with the high office which is his. I would ask the hon. gentleman who has made this motion, and who has supported the substance of the motion presented by the Prime Minister, although, as is his right, he has objected to the procedures involved, in the light of the vital circumstances that confronted not only the government, not only every member of this house, but members of the United Nations who are anxious to prevent a threat to peace, to recognize, in the goodness of his heart and judgment, that he does not serve the cause of parliament well when he seeks to condemn the presiding officer of this house. The Deputy Speaker courageously and efficiently dealt with a situation which resulted in parliament having one of its noblest days on Friday last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) correctly referred to the motion that he has presented as dealing with a very serious matter. In fact, in the institution of parliament nothing could be more serious than a questioning of the integrity of a presiding officer. I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe realizes that if this motion were to carry, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) would have no alternative but to resign his position as Deputy Speaker. I am sure the hon. member for Lapointe realizes that if, in fact, the motion were defeated on a vote but a substantial number of members voted for it, the Deputy Speaker would be in the same position. For reasons I shall give, I hope that at the end of the debate he will consider asking the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Speaker, it may seem a bit unfair that one person should be in the position where, through making one mistake, he should have to suffer the kind of consequence that would follow from the passing of this motion. That, of course, is simply an indication of the exalted nature of the position held by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is a position that does require the utmost impartiality, the highest integrity; and those who accept this position recognize that fact. But I think the hon. member for Lapointe, and all of us, have to consider very seriously whether the question that has been put before us is of the kind that should lead the house, should lead even a few members of the house, to call in question the integrity of a presiding officer.
20220-77*
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker
It has been the practice this afternoon- and it is not unique in parliament-for members to stand and place the blame somewhere else. I am going to do something different; I am going to break one of the rules of political life, which is that a politician is never supposed to admit that he made a mistake. I want to say that I share the blame for what happened on Friday night, and I refuse to stand here and put the blame on the hon. member for Stormont; I refuse to put all the blame on the government; I refuse to put all the blame on everybody else. I share in that blame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If a mistake was made Friday night-and I believe that a mistake or two was made-we all made it, including the member for Winnipeg North Centre, including the members of my hon. friend's group, ten of whom were not even here-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -despite standing order 5, which says:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the house, unless leave of absence has been given him by the house.
We are all in this, and I suggest that the only answer-


Gilles Grégoire: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is saying, at the end of this debate we will be responsible for what happened. I should like to point out what I pointed out in my remarks earlier, that unanimous consent had been asked for in the middle of the afternoon and was refused; so everyone in our party was entitled to think there would be no sitting on Friday night. Also, about 150 members were missing from the house on Friday night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that under the rules the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) will have the privilege of replying later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point we have just been discussing between the two of us, that one cannot argue with the words of standing order 5, and members who have not been given leave of absence by the house have no right to complain about what happened-


Gilles Grégoire: Where is the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson)?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They cannot complain about what happened in their absence, which is what the members of that group are doing.


Gilles Grégoire: Where is the Prime Minister?

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us again review what happened. It is too bad that this takes time, but the day is shot anyway, so far as the budget debate is concerned.


Mr. Winkler:: So is the budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is too bad that this takes time; but let us review what happened and keep some things clear. Procedurally there
were two separate issues on Friday. This was why I did not want the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to confuse the two, so far as I was concerned. The first issue, procedurally, was whether the house could properly sit Friday night. I took part in the procedural argument on that point and it was my contention then, as it is my contention now, that our sitting on Friday night was legal and proper in every sense of the word. Standing order 41 makes it clear that a motion respecting the times of sitting or the time of adjournment of the house does not require notice. The motion could be voted on, could be debated; but at any rate it does not require notice. A motion was made; it passed, and we sat, properly, on Friday night. There is no question about that. I may say to the hon. member for Lapointe that he does not confuse that issue, so far as his motion is concerned, because he is not talking about the fact that we sat. But I say to him that to stand up and tell us that the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) complained or objected in the afternoon to our sitting that night has no validity, because he was still here when I pointed that standing order 41 did not require unanimous consent for a motion to sit; that it required only a motion supported by a majority of the house. If he meant it; if he did not want the house to sit on Friday night, it was his duty to stay here until that motion was put and vote against it. But no; he left and did not stay to vote on the matter. Let there be no question about it; there are two separate issues, one being the sitting and the other being something else. But so far as sitting on Friday night is concerned, it was perfectly legal and perfectly proper all the way down the line.


Gilles Grégoire: You are trying to open an open door.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other point is a different one, namely, was it proper for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to present a motion in Friday evening's sitting of which notice had not been given? Standing order 42 is quite clear; this can be done only if there is unanimous consent. Let us be honest; let us not play with words; let us not quarrel about 10 seconds, 14 seconds, or 16 seconds.

On the part of those who were here Friday night when the motion was put, there was not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All the rest of us agreed, but there were objections by two or three hon. members at the foot of this side of the house. Let us also be honest and frank about this. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker), I, and other hon. members too, were troubled about this-I was pretty unhappy here Friday night-but we sat still; we did not object even when the Deputy Speaker said to the members of the Creditiste party that they could appeal if they wanted to. We sat still. In other words, what was done by Mr. Deputy Speaker was done in the name of, with the consent of, and on the part of almost the whole house. All of us who consented in it are part of the mistake that was made, and I do not think we should try to make a scapegoat out of the Deputy Speaker and put upon him alone the mistake of all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that his group did not appeal. The Deputy Speaker made it quite clear at one point, having said two or three times that he had ruled that the Prime Minister had unanimous consent, that his ruling could be appealed. I do not think the ruling was a correct one; I do not think the Prime Minister had unanimous consent, and I can tell this house that if I had been opposed to what was taking place and had wanted to register my objection, it would not have taken place, that's all; and so would it be for some other members of this house.
The fact of the matter is that after the Deputy Speaker pointed out that this was his ruling he said to the members of the Creditiste party-he said to the whole house, if you please-"You can appeal it if you wish; there is no other alternative". But no one appealed. To say that there were only three Creditiste members present is no argument at all. It takes five members to force a recorded vote, but it takes only one member to register an appeal and to ask the Speaker to put the question to the house. But that was not done. Therefore I suggest that there were quite a few mistakes on all sides of the house.
Now I want to say a word about the part of the government in this matter. It was my intention to do this earlier in my remarks, but I felt that there had been too much blaming of everybody else and that I should put the blame on all of us first. I think a good deal of the blame for what happened

does rest on the government. I believe that the government chose the wrong course on Friday night. When the government knew that there was opposition on the part of some hon. members to a resolution being dealt with during a perfectly proper sitting, I think that what they should have done was to ask to revert to motions, and on motions, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to have made a statement exactly in the terms of the statement he did make on Friday night. Then there should have been an opportunity for the leaders or spokesmen of each opposition party to make statements. If that had been done the government would have known the view of parliament on the issue of sending troops to the United Nations peace keeping operation in Cyprus. Had that been done the government would have carried out its commitment to consult parliament.
The motion itself was not really necessary. It had no legal effect in any event. It did not say that parliament approved; it merely said that it was expedient for the houses of parliament to do something. Everyone knows that parliament has three branches, the House of Commons, the Senate and the crown. Parliament has done something as a parliament only when a bill goes through both houses and receives the consent of the crown. All that was put through on Friday night was a pious resolution in this house, and a pious resolution was put through the other house, which gave the government the green light to do what it did. The executive has the authority to put troops on active service; the only legal requirement is that it call parliament within ten days after taking such action. The only reason the question was brought before parliament was because the Prime Minister made the commitment that he would bring the matter before parliament, and I honour him for doing that and also for having placed the matter before parliament on Friday night. But the mistake which the government made was in the way it chose to do this, and when opposition was expressed to a motion being made without 48 hours' notice or unanimous consent being given, it should have chosen the other course.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that had the government asked for leave to revert to motions and made a statement they would have had the views of the house. The views expressed would have been overwhelmingly of the opinion that the action proposed was what Canada wanted to do, and after such discussion it might even have been the case that there would have been unanimous consent to put through a motion affirming the views expressed by the house. As I say, Mr. Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker Speaker, I think this was a mistake in judgment with regard to the way to handle the matter.
Now, why did I not say this on Friday night? I like to believe that I can think quickly about procedural matters, but I confess I was taken by surprise when the government presented its motion. I thought we would just get a statement, to be followed by other statements. I was aware of the international implications of this and of the misunderstanding which could arise from a procedural argument at that point over our participation in the United Nations peace keeping force. I was also aware of another dilemma. According to a note I made of the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), he said that all over the free world concern would be felt if we got into a procedural argument and failed to act-or something like that. But it is also true that if we are to keep freedom we must maintain intact our parliamentary institutions and maintain intact the protection of the rights and privileges of the minorities in such an institution.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a mistake was made on Friday night. But who made the mistake?-not the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamoureux) acting as Deputy Speaker; not a few people upon whom the blame has been placed; and not just the government by the way it brought this motion forward. The mistake was made by all of us in not objecting to the course which was taken. That being the case it seems to me that we should not be asked even to vote on this motion. It will require unanimous consent to have it withdrawn, but I hope that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) will ask for that consent and I hope that the house will give it. I urge this course of action because I do not think it is fair for this house to put on the Deputy Speaker the stigma of having two, three or 13 votes cast against him, for the fact is that he has done a good job as Deputy Speaker and as one of the presiding officers of the House of Commons.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I went through a fair amount of torment and unhappiness on Friday night because of the procedural angles in which the house got involved. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has pointed out, I got into the argument about whether or not we were sitting in accordance with the rules; but I did not get into the other argument, for the reasons I have already given. I have thought about this a lot. Indeed I know of no procedural situation since the pipe line debates of 1956 which has occasioned so much discussion around this building. Every time one goes for coffee or tea or for a meal and

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker meets people he invariably finds the discussion turns to this. There was a budget the other night but that is not discussed; the subject for discussion is what happened last Friday.


William Heward Grafftey: There is nothing to discuss about the budget.


Murdo William Martin: It is a proper measure of the budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the members of one of the opposition parties-I need not name him-put it to me the other day very thoughtfully. He said: "What are we going to do to repair the damage we did to procedure on Friday night?" That made me think. I admit that we did some damage to procedure by the mistake which all of us made, so what can we do to repair that damage? We do not repair it by putting the blame on the Deputy Speaker. We do not repair it by putting all the blame on the government, though much of it they should take in view of the course followed. We do not repair the damage by putting the blame on one party or another. We will repair the damage by all of us admitting we made a mistake; by affirming, as did the Leader of the Opposition, that this is not a precedent and that it will not happen again.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was affirmed by him, but not by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin).


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the government should make the same affirmation. I think the government should agree that there was a better course which could have been followed on Friday night which would have given them the knowledge that parliament was with the government in this Cyprus operation, a course which would not have done damage to parliament. If we will take this stand and be honest enough to admit that mistakes were made, and make it clear that we will not make these mistakes again, then I think we shall repair the damage.
I regret that the hon. member for Lapointe has brought in this motion, which casts the shadow it does over the hon. member for Stormont, but perhaps in the end this is good. Perhaps it is better to have this matter aired on the floor of parliament rather than just talk about it in the corridors and in the coffee shops in the building. We have had it talked out; but having talked it out I hope that this motion will now be withdrawn and that we will have even more respect for our parliamentary institutions, because as men and women we are honest enough to face up to the situation and to do the right thing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the hon. member
a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he will press the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to state, as did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), that this will not constitute a precedent. Because the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not so state.


Mr. Deschaieleis:: Why do you not ask him
yourself?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the only one so far who has admitted some personal responsibility for what happened last Friday night -although the only responsibility I have is that I kept quiet-I am prepared to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to admit that the government made a mistake. I am also prepared to urge the Leader of the Opposition to admit that he, like me, made a mistake by sitting quiet.


An hon. Member:: He did.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party, and particularly for myself, I wish to take some of the responsibility for what happened on Friday night. I am responsible, because I was not here on that night. If you look at Hansard Mr. Speaker, I think an argument can be made with respect to the time lapse factor. Whether it was a few seconds or minutes, it becomes clear that there was some lapse of time between the time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) began speaking and when the first objection was raised. I know there have been other occasions when any time lapse at all has been considered sufficient to deprive a member of the opportunity to raise an objection to something requiring unanimous consent.
I do not propose to take a great deal of time to state our position with respect to what happened. I think every member who was in the house that night is prepared to admit that there was a mistake and that the responsibility for that mistake must be spread over most of the members who were here, and certainly those who were not here. In listening to all the arguments that have been made, however, three facts have become crystal clear. First of all, on Friday night the parliament of Canada was asked to consider an extremely serious and deteriorating situation. The second fact that is clear, from what has been said by those members who were in attendance that night, is that an overwhelming majority of the members present were in favour of taking the action they did take. The

third fact is that the presiding officer, the Deputy Speaker, was of the opinion that unanimous consent had been given earlier.
I do not want to take a lot of time on this matter. I think we would be making another serious mistake if we attempted to place all the responsibility on the presiding officer at that time. I think it would be good for parliament and perhaps good for the future if the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was accepted by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and he withdrew this motion, because I can appreciate the difficulty that the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Lamou-reux) will have if any significant number of members vote for the motion, even though it may be defeated.
I think this points up something else, that perhaps we need to revise the rules to deal expeditiously with matters that require quick action in cases of emergency. I do not want to go into the details of the emergency that was facing the parliament of Canada on Friday night, but I think that in retrospect most of us will agree that the action taken was wise and was needed immediately. We can look back on what happened and not really have any objection to the action that was taken but at the same time I think we must admit that there was a transgression of the rules.
That is all I want to say, Mr. Speaker. We in this party are willing to accept our share of the responsibility and to accept the statement of the Deputy Speaker that he was of the opinion that consent had been given.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, in this particular intance I approve the statement made by my leader with regard to the position we will take, and for several reasons, but there are some observations which I think should be made. I could not vote for the motion if for no other reason than that I would consider I am estopped. I was here. I had the same opportunity as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and every other member to express my opposition to what I considered were several obvious breaches of the rules. I do not know whether I will go as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did and assume guilt. However, if I did I would say that the guilt might well be apportioned according to the degree of knowledge that hon. members have of the rules, in which event I would certainly yield to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is a great authority on the rules and so must assume the greatest share of the blame.
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is very kind.


Gerald William Baldwin: However, I think we should be grateful to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) for bringing up this matter so that we can have a full and useful discussion and so that in parliaments yet to come those who examine the record of Friday the 13th day of March will not feel they are bound by what happened then. As far as I am concerned, I felt embarrassed and futile in the face of several instances of mutilation of the rules, not only those which have been referred to but one or two others as well. True enough, it was in a good cause, but do good ends always justify the means to achieve them?
This parliament is the highest tribunal in the land. We make our own rules; we change them, we alter them. There is nobody to say us nay, save only for our duty to see that the business of parliament is expedited and that the rights of individual members are maintained. This is the golden currency of our procedure, and I do not think anyone who was here on Friday night can deny that that coinage was badly debased.
Let us put this matter in perspective. There was no necessity for the government, in law at least, to secure approval of the house or approval of parliament. I think that the provisions of the National Defence Act relating to our contribution to the United Nations are such that this need not have been done. However, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) was quite correct in the course he followed.
On an earlier occasion when he laid out the five conditions which had to be met before a force would be dispatched to Cyprus he said that parliament would be consulted, depending upon the size and constitution of the force. I think this constitutes an admission on the part of the government that they knew they did not have to come to parliament for legal approval, but in matters of this kind I think it is proper to do so. In my view it would be highly improper if it had not been done.
However, Mr. Speaker, there are at least two ways by which it could have been done without exposing us to what happened on Friday night. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out one method of procedure, and there was certainly another very simple one. As the course of events in Cyprus proceeded on Monday or Tuesday or even on Wednesday, it surely must have been obvious to the government, who had sources of information not available to other members of the house, of course,

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker that the situation there was developing in such a way that they were going to be committed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is a vital matter and I know my hon. friend wants to be fair. We could not know at that time because there was no international force in being. We did not know until between six and eight o'clock Friday night. Just until then there was no international force established. We were awaiting information from the secretary general and we acted at the earliest possible moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: I, of course, accept the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, I would attach this annex to his statement. With that perspicacity for which he is famous, I am sure that by Wednesday night he had a pretty sharp suspicion and, in any event, nothing would have estopped the government from placing on the order paper a notice of motion that would become an order of the house, and providing that the business of the house could be interrupted to deal with the motion which was in fact put before us, and that debate on that motion would proceed until completed. I am quite sure, having in mind the spirit which was evident on Friday night, consent would have been given.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may tell my hon. friend that we had given consideration to that kind of conditional motion. But it was decided we could not ask parliament to approve something that might not happen, although we were very anxious to see that it did happen.	.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was not suggesting that approval should be given, but that a notice of motion should have been put on the order paper to the effect that at any time the routine business could be interrupted by the introduction of this motion, and debate on it would continue until concluded. This procedure would have permitted the government, at any time they saw fit or that the urgency developed, to have proceeded with the motion. However, Mr. Speaker, the government is the sole judge of these circumstances and must accept the responsibility that any government must accept in deciding if the facts, circumstances and conditions require them to proceed in the way they did proceed.
I believe that this is where the mistake was made, and I would hope it may never occur again. However, if these circumstances do recur, I would hope the procedure I have outlined would be followed. Members of parliament should not have to sit idly by in a situation of this kind, of international crisis,


because, as has been said by other hon. members, any attempt to assert that the rules should be observed would participate a debate and possibly divide the house on a procedural matter. This would not be a very good thing for the government of this country, for the situation on Cyprus or for the other nations of the free world who were considering making contributions to this force.
For these reasons, I feel that I cannot support the motion. I feel, though, that while we are all taking blame it would not be an inopportune time for a member of the government, perhaps the genial seatmate of the Prime Minister, to stand up and say quite honestly that the government did make a mistake, but that it will not happen again. This would be an excellent thing for the morale of this parliament, particularly if the government could admit it does make mistakes.
These remarks, Mr. Speaker, outline my position. I think they need to be said because if in the future a government, or whoever occupies the position of Speaker or Deputy Speaker, is confronted by a situation in which someone says there is an emergency, and we must act quickly by forgetting about the rules, everyone will be put in a serious situation. Who is going to make the decision? Will it be the government or the Speaker? Is he to be placed in this position? Surely not. I think a tremendous responsibility is placed upon the government in introducing these motions and asking the house to approve of them. I think it would clarify the situation if they would frankly admit the error which they made under these particular circumstances.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I only want to say a few words on this point, because I think everyone is in agreement that there is a certain amount of responsibility in this connection resting in every section of the house. The fact that the rules have not been enforced is, in my opinion, some cause for alarm amongst all members. There is a responsibility, too, upon the officers at the table, because they should bring these things to the attention of the house under the system that we use.
I should like to cite an example of what I mean, and it is to be found in Hansard for January 30, 1963, page 3251. 1 quote:


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent, I move:
"That the standing committee on marine and fisheries be authorized to examine and consider (1) the recommendations of the international north Pacific fisheries commission that the stock of halibut in the eastern Bering sea and the stock of herring off the west coast of the Queen Charlotte islands each be exempted from the abstention principle contained in the international

convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, (2) the international convention for the high seas fisheries of the north Pacific ocean, and (3) the last annual report of the international north Pacific fisheries commission and, in particular, to examine and consider the possible harmful effects which such recommendations may have upon Canada's fisheries and with authority to report its findings and recommendations from time to time."
This motion is seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather).


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this is a substantive motion and therefore in my opinion it requires notice. Under the circumstances it could not be acceptable at this time without the appropriate notice.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman asked for unanimous consent, and we would be glad to accord it.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is unanimous consent, of course, it can be moved. Is there unanimous consent in this regard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that there is a dissenting voice.
Obviously, this is the normal way in which to handle these matters. It was not necessary for a member of the house to be so familiar with the rules that he drew the attention of the house to the fact unanimous consent was needed. The Speaker has a responsibility, and I think it is a responsibility he should exercise. I was shocked at some of the statements I heard today and yesterday to the effect that this is a repetition of something that has happened several times, and that the government had a responsibility in each of those cases. I doubt that this is true, and I certainly hope it is not true. However, I believe that the government should be censured, in fact all members of the house should be censured. I believe the situation resulted from haste, and I believe that if the Speaker has any responsibility it is a responsibility that we give him and that we expect him to exercise.
I believe, too, that the Speaker must be aware of the temper of the house and of any minority opinion in the house, particularly when that minority opinion has been expressed. In a democracy, minorities are almost as important as majorities. Considerations must be given to these minorities and, in my opinion, the Speaker has the responsibility to see that this happens. Since I have been in this house I have found Speakers, in the main, to be fairly unbiased and they have made decisions taking into consideration the will of the minority as well as of the majority. I do not believe the rules should be used, or the lack of familiarity with the rules by hon. members should offer the occasion for doing things in a manner that is not in keeping with the dignity of this house.
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker
I believe this was done. I believe in using the expression "with unanimous consent" in the case which I have quoted, where the hon. member for Skeena used it, he did it with the view of trying to do something he was not able to do in any other way. Of course he may disagree with that, but I think it was done in this way because as a private member he would not have the right to do this without a proper motion. I think the Prime Minister did it in this case with exactly the same view, and did it because there was the necessity to get consent.
I believe the Deputy Speaker was the victim in this case, because of the fact there was an indication that there would be consultation between the parties in the house so that unanimous consent could be given to the introduction of a resolution without the motion. Therefore I am in favour of the resolution we now have before us, except for the fact that it lays all the blame on the Deputy Speaker. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin):
That the last line of the resolution be amended by striking out all the words following the words, "be it resolved that" and substituting the words, "this house regrets that it did not take action to uphold the rules of parliament to preserve the rights of each member."
This will place on the record the fact that this house has seen fit to censure itself, and would give direction to the Chair and the officers at the table that we wish them to enforce the rights we believe we enjoy in being members of the house, under the democratic principles established over the years by the rules and procedures of the house. It will be taken as a censure of each and every member of the house, and particularly of those who were not here to participate at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Humber. I may point out that I do not want to slow up the debate, but if the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) would allow me, I wish to consider his amendment while the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) is making his remarks.


William Arnold Peters: If Your Honour finds that the amendment is not in order, I would like publicly to make the request that the mover and seconder of the motion implement the amendment, with consent, as part of their original motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I would like to deal with that in a few minutes.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, as one of those members of the house who was present on Friday evening

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker from before the ringing of the bells at eight o'clock until the adjournment of the house, I feel I should make some comments on the effects of that evening on one private member, namely, myself.
I took a great deal of satisfaction out of having been a participant in the discussion on Friday night, and I believe the house did the proper thing in authorizing the government to dispatch troops to Cyprus. But even if I could take satisfaction from having done the proper thing in the house, I must say that procedural difficulties did rest somewhat heavily on my mind and heart over the week end. We are now discussing this matter on a Wednesday afternoon when the tension of Friday night has entirely disappeared. The atmosphere today is vastly different from that of Friday night, when we were in the middle of an international situation that required immediate attention.
Mr. Ron Collister of the Toronto Telegram had an article in the Telegram last night in which he spoke of the proceedings last Friday as:
The drama of Friday the 13th, a fantastic day in history, adds up to this-
And then he goes on to give the points dealt with in Friday night's debate. The editor of the Telegram put as a heading on Mr. Col-lister's dispatch, "only two hours from war."
When you consider that we were debating a matter that was keeping the world only two hours from war you must realize that all present in this chamber were well aware of the import of their every word and action. I know it was the feeling of the great majority in the house that, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly." That was the attitude of the great majority.
Some speakers this afternoon have endeavoured to state that the error, if any, committed on Friday night, is the responsibility of the government. Might I point out that the Globe and Mail, in its report on Saturday last of the events of Friday evening, had this paragraph on page 10:
Attending the emergency sitting were 38 Liberals, 34 Conservatives, eight New Democrats, one Social Crediter and three Creditistes.
That adds up to 38 Liberals and 46 in the opposition. If the error of Friday night, if any were committed, is to be ascribed to anyone, certainly it could not be given to a minority of 38 against a combined opposition of 46.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: In speaking further on that question I would like to say that I thought the saddest words spoken in this house on Friday were those of the hon. member for


Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) who, during the course of his objections to the procedure in the house said, "I know that my speech is of no avail..." These words are to be found at page 924 of Hansard for Friday last, and it made me very sorrowful to think that an hon. member of parliament could stand up and make the impassioned address that the hon. member for Roberval made, and then believe that his speech was of no avail. Surely he must have pride in the parliamentary institutions of Canada today when he realizes the full dress debate that has been given for several hours this Wednesday afternoon to the actions of the three members of the Creditistes on Friday night.
I sincerely hope he will agree with me that his speech was of great avail, and that he will take satisfaction in the workings of the parliamentary institutions of this great country, where each member of parliament knows he can bring forward the desires of his area, set them forth, and know they are going to be considered from all sides by men from one end of Canada to the other.
There are rules of the house. We have standing orders of the house and we have rule 42. Three members of the Creditistes, to their eternal credit, stood up in parliament and fought valiantly for rule 42, but my mother used to teach me that rules are made to be broken. When Nelson went into Copenhagen sound, under King's orders and regulations he knew he was expected to obey the instructions of the admiral of the fleet. Admiral Parker was the admiral of the fleet and he ran up the signal to withdraw. Nelson put the telescope to his blind eye, broke the King's orders and regulations, stayed in Copenhagen sound and won the battle. Are we going to ask now that Nelson's commission as an admiral of the fleet be withdrawn because he broke King's orders and regulations and stayed to win the battle?
If an error were made by the Deputy Speaker, surely to heaven we can put the rule book to our blind eye and congratulate the man on the basis that "well done is better than well said". I would like to ask the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) if he would give serious consideration to asking for the unanimous approval of the house to the withdrawal of his motion. Surely it has been given the fullest attention of this parliament on the points he has raised. He knows how heavily it rests on the hearts of us all, and I would sincerely ask that he give consideration to asking for unanimous consent for the withdrawal of his motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the question of the amendment before the house, and to suggest

to you with confidence that it is clearly out of order. When we are seeking to correct a situation, as the hon. gentleman seeks to do in his motion in a way that is not acceptable to most of us in the house, it would be regrettable if we committed another error.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is, perhaps, without precedent. It is an amendment which calls upon the house to condemn itself and I suggest to you, that it is out of order. It is a substantive motion. It is not, in fact, an amendment at all, and its consequence, if adopted, would be to deprive the house of the opportunity of doing what it clearly wishes to do, that is, to express its confidence in the Deputy Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared, with the advice of counsel, to give a ruling on the suggested amendment to the motion before the house. If hon. members will examine carefully the motion of the hon. member for Lapointe, it reads:
That in view of the unacceptable actions of the Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Stormont, during the sitting on Friday, March 13, 1964 from 8 to 10 p.m___be it resolved that-
This amendment, it seems to me, should be linked with the motion, and if hon. members read the amendment, with the motion as I have summarized it, it becomes inconsistent. The relevant citation is citation 203 of Beau-chesne, fourth edition, paragraph 1:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
In the circumstances it seems to me we would not be consistent with ourselves if we were to accept this proposed amendment to the motion and therefore, in my opinion, it should not be accepted.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I wish to add a few remarks to those which have already been contributed by hon. members on the subject of Friday night's proceeding. I should say at the outset that I was among those who were here on Friday night, and one of those who did observe the hon. member on my far left attempting to catch the Speaker's eye in order to raise his point of order. Perhaps some of the difficulty he experienced as indicated by a reading of Hansard, is the fact that the Hansard reporters had their backs to him. But regardless of how the difficulty arose the fact is that it did.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that all members should share-I think he implied 20220-78J
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker that they should share equally-in responsibility for what was done on Friday night. Some of us, as my hon. friend for Peace River has pointed out, have very little knowledge of the rules, while others have considerable knowledge. I think the degree of responsibility in this regard should be related to the degree of knowledge of the rules of the house possessed by particular members. Certainly, those who have been here for several years and who have acquainted themselves more thoroughly with the rules should be counted upon to rise when occasions occur such as occurred on Friday night, in order that mistakes may be avoided.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs replied to the Leader of the Opposition he intimated to the house that there was some doubt whether an error had, in fact, been made. He used the expression "if an error has been made". This was done, perhaps, because the Leader of the Opposition had earlier called upon all members of the house to agree with him that an error had been made. I do not think there is any doubt but that an error was, in fact, made, and I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs has now admitted that there was an error, inasmuch as he has just suggested we should not compound that error by accepting a motion which is out of order.
I believe that while responsibility for the error does not lie upon the Deputy Speaker, and that while the error which was committed on Friday night does not call for the grave step of censuring the Deputy Speaker, responsibility for its occurrence should be placed where it belongs. I say this on two counts, the first of which is that an alternative procedure could have been followed, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Peace River and agreed to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not agree. I simply pointed out to the hon. member that the course he mentioned had been considered.


Erik Nielsen: Then I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as I listened to him and as I observed him in his seat, was agreeing with what the hon. member for Peace River said.


Murdo William Martin: I said just the opposite.


Erik Nielsen: The course my hon. friend suggested could have been followed if the Prime Minister had done the right thing.


Murdo William Martin: I am sure the hon. member must realize that what I said in answer to the hon. member for Peace River was this, the particular proposal he

Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker mentioned had been considered but we had concluded, for the reasons I mentioned, that it would not be the right way in which to proceed. The hon. member for Yukon must not persist in saying that, although I rose to point out that we were against that proposal, I was in favour of it.


Erik Nielsen: I will certainly accept the explanation given by the minister, but I think he could now rise and state unequivocally whether the suggestion referred to by my hon. friend from Peace River could have been followed by the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could have been followed, but I would ask the hon. member to reflect a little. If we had done so, we would have been censured for bringing forward a resolution with regard to something which was not even in existence- with regard to something which was wholly hypothetical. Had we proceeded in this way we would have been condemned, and rightly so.


Erik Nielsen: I would agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs if, either by his decision or by the decision of the Prime Minister, that had been done unilaterally. But as one hon. member has indicated-I believe it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I am not sure- consultations could have been carried out among the parties in the light of a serious international situation such as this requiring urgent action within 48 hours. The appropriate course would have been to conduct conversations with the leaders of the other parties so as to determine whether there would have been unanimity. And, no doubt, unanimity would have been obtained had those consultations taken place. In the light of such consultations, the course suggested by the hon. member for Peace River would have been an acceptable one to the house and the government would have incurred no censure, because prior agreement would have been obtained.
The error committed last Friday is not that of the Deputy Speaker, nor is it the error of all the members of this house sharing the responsibility equally. Responsibility for the error lies with the government and, more particularly, with the Prime Minister because it was he who placed the Deputy Speaker in the position in which he found himself. He was in the unenviable position of having to expedite a motion presented by the Prime Minister to meet an urgent international situation and in doing so, because of the pressure put on him by the situation he had to meet, and because of the ill-conceived procedure which had been decided upon by the Prime Minister and the government, he
(Mr. Martin (Essex East).]
was placed in a position which has made him the object of a motion of censure. The error was generated in the first instance by the Prime Minister and by the government. That is where the fault lies. I say this because there were alternative methods of procedure which could have been followed. The Prime Minister should not have placed the Deputy Speaker in the position in which he found himself on Friday night.
As a result, the rules were abused. In the words of my hon. friend from Peace River, the rules were mutilated. The Deputy Speaker was merely an instrument in the hands of the Prime Minister in this instance. Had it not been for the bungling of the government in this situation, the Deputy Speaker would never be facing this motion today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member would care to accept a suggestion from the Chair. Before very long it will be five o'clock, and I did suggest to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gre-goire) that he might have the privilege of replying. After all, it is his motion. If we go beyond five o'clock, this matter will come up again tomorrow, unless we have unanimous consent-


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -to go into the private members' hour.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I was wondering whether the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would care to bring his interesting remarks to a conclusion in order to give the hon. member for Lapointe an opportunity to reply.


Frank Howard: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think you inadvertently referred to me bringing my remarks to a close. I did not have the floor; I was not engaging in the debate; I do not intend to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard that there is any intention of the mover and the seconder of the amendment, nor the hon. member for Lapointe, to withdraw the motion. This is a course which we think should be followed. In the light of the absence of any such withdrawal, I think hon. members should express views, if they have them; and I understand there are further views to be expressed on this matter. But I personally will bring my own remarks to a conclusion very shortly.
One more facet that I want to deal with before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, is

that I suggest a certain deviousness on the part of government members has injected itself into the debate on this motion. It seems, sitting over here, that the design has been to regard the parties on this side of the chamber as four separate groups, rather than recognizing an official opposition. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) comes along now and says that we must all share in what was done on Friday night-as have other members-it seems to me they are using their argument in one fashion when it suits them, and in quite another when they want co-operation in the house. Let me conclude-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: -sir, by making two further points, and they are these. That an error was committed on Friday night there can be no doubt; and that that error lies at the doorstep of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) there can also be no doubt. The other point is that-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who is not here, had heavy responsibilities at that moment as head of the government of this country, I am sure my hon. friend would want to indicate that the action taken by the Prime Minister was not only in the national interest but an attempt on the part of this country, and of all hon. members of this house, to make a contribution to peace in Cyprus and, indirectly, perhaps to peace in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: There can be no doubt at all about that, sir. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will recall that the leader of the official opposition at all times co-operated on behalf of this party in saying that unanimous consent would be given to interrupting the ordinary business of the house at any time the Prime Minister felt it necessary to do so. There was that same co-operation when it came to the conclusion of the debate, when there was no dissenting voice from this party to the sending of troops to Cyprus. The co-operation was there.
The point I make is simply that the Prime Minister was wrong in his choice of method to bring the matter before the house. There were alternate procedures available; they were not taken advantage of. There was no consultation between parties on a matter as important as this. Because of these factors the Deputy Speaker was placed in this unenviable position of facing a motion of censure, a motion that I suggest was brought on
18, 1964	1223
Non-Confidence in Deputy Speaker by the ill-conceived decisions as to procedure that were made by the Prime Minister and the government.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to close the debate, but I would just like to ask a question of the hon. member. Since he has pointed out the man who he thinks is responsible for this situation, is it the hon. member's intention to bring a motion blaming the person responsible?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that under our rules it is impossible at this time to raise a subamendment to a motion of this nature.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken part in the debate had I not been challenged. I took part in the debate last Friday evening, until the very end, and it was said that my speech had been a little harsh because I stated to the house that I knew very well that I was speaking for nothing. I meant what I said then because I had witnessed so many violations of the rules of the house.
Mr. Speaker, when you try to follow the rules and to learn them a little more each day and you see old politicians, who always jump up if we go against the rules, do so themselves blatantly, you cannot help but feel that it is enough to demoralize a young member. And sincerely, last Friday evening, I asked myself if the house could really sit today in view of all those violations of the rules.
We are now discussing the motion of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and everybody seems to be confessing his guilt. Everybody is beating his breast and feels a bit responsible, except the real culprits. That is what I find strange, Mr. Speaker.
I admire those who recognize that they have transgressed our regulations but, as I say, I blame those who refuse to acknowledge their responsibility and who bear in fact the largest part of the guilt.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion and public bills.

Order. It being five o'clock p.m., the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.

Historic Sites and Monuments HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS	Mr. Herridge: Sheer propaganda.



SUGGESTED ACQUISITION OF RESIDENCE OF SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD AT KINGSTON

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of acquiring the title to the historic residence of this nation's first prime minister, the Right Honourable Sir John A. Macdonald, the same being the property known as 35 Centre street, in the city of Kingston, Ontario.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, according to the order paper, shall we study the public bills or the notices of motions? Looking at the order paper for Wednesday, March 18, I see this: from five to six o'clock p.m., private members' business: first, notices of motions and then public bills.


Mr. Speaker:: This is what I have called, and we are taking No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack). If the hon. member will refer to the order paper, I think he will see that this is correct.


Mr. Benson:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the motion before the house. In doing so I would first of all say that I personally agree wholeheartedly with the motion before the house; and the government agrees with it, as is exemplified by the rapid action of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in this regard when this particular residence came up for purchase.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. What is your point of order?


Edgar John Benson: My point of order-and I must explain the action taken by the government in order to raise my point of order-is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) announced on December 23 that this particular residence would be purchased. At that time I had met with both with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing), and by action of the treasury board on January 16, 1964, reference No. 6619768, it was agreed to purchase this particular residence. Therefore, the intent of this particular motion has already been carried out. I maintain that it is a dangerous precedent-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that the reasoning he is following and the words he is uttering could easily be made during the debate itself which is about to take place. I do not see a point of order at this moment.


Edgar John Benson: If I might succinctly state my point of order, we are using the time of the house to discuss a motion which asks the government to do something which it has already done. If we carry this to its ridiculous conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we could put motions on the order paper asking that the government enter world war II, and then debate in this house recommendations that the government do things which have already been done.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Kingston is saying that the government has acted in this matter and has purchased the house, but so far as the other hon. members in the house are concerned, there is no definite proof of this except the statement of the hon. member.


Edgar John Benson: But I did quote the treasury board reference, and the date the purchase was approved by treasury board.


Mr. Speaker:: Then in the circumstances I should like to ask for the views of the hon. member on this matter.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention in this matter. I was going to, and I will, commend the government and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Benson) on their assiduous attention to this resolution. I want to commend the government on their action and on their discernment in the purchase of this property, the matter having been mentioned to them by my leader. I submit that we are not wasting the time of the house. A considerable amount of time has been wasted this afternoon, but I think it is now time that we took a little interval to discuss what has been accomplished in the past by the great leaders which this country has produced.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member, but I understand he is speaking to the resolution, not the point of order. Does the hon. member wish to say anything on the point of order under discussion?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: No, Your Honour, I have nothing to say on the point of order, but I do have more to say on the resolution.


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words on the point of order. Whatever knowledge the government may have in this regard, and despite the hon. member for Kingston having disclosed that there is a treasury board minute authorizing the acquisition of the title to this house, no disclosure has been made as to why the house is being bought which would be at all in conformity

with resolution put forward by the hon. member. The purpose of the resolution is recommendation that the property be acquired as a memorial to Sir John A. Macdonald. Nothing has been indicated in this regard in any announcement made, and therefore I submit that the hon. member should be allowed to proceed with his resolution.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak in this regard, the Prime Minister made a statement on December 23 which quite clearly indicated the purpose for which this house was acquired. If I may quote on the announcement, the Prime Minister said:
A program for restoring this house will be undertaken, and it is my hope that this work can be completed within two years. This house will be refurnished not only in the style of Sir John A.'s time but with some of the actual furniture used by him. This house will represent a proud historical trust of the Canadian people. As such, it is my sincere hope that it will contribute in real terms to keeping alive the memory of a very great Canadian.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, could I pose this thought on the point of order. From my own point of view I do not subscribe to this suggestion, but it may well be that some hon. members in the house may want to put forward ideas as to what should happen to the property which differ from those mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston, as announced by the Prime Minister. Those ideas and thoughts which hon. members have by way of debate or amendment may possibly be precluded if this motion is ruled out of order. I think it is better to proceed so that views can be expressed, first about the advisability of acquiring this property-because that is what the motion says-and second, as to what should happen to the property once it is acquired. The views expressed might be quite different from those enunciated by the hon. member for Kingston.


Mr. Speaker:: I may say at this stage that I have very grave doubts whether we should proceed with the debate of this matter inasmuch as the motion is asking that something be done which has already been done. However, I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack).


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must agree with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that although this action has been taken, and timely taken, by the government, a review of the matter might be made, and some good ideas put forward by hon. members might also be incorporated into the fulfilment of this historic undertaking. I too have the same notes which were recently read by my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Historic Sites and Monuments Benson) in connection with the tentative program of the government to preserve what will be a national memorial. In passing I also wish to commend the minister of northern affairs, who is in charge of the national historic sites board, for the administration of this matter.
For those who have been watching from the sides, the citizens of this country who, of course, pay the bills in this regard, some of the younger generation and the new Canadians might ask: "Who is Macdonald?" That is a good question. To you, to me and to the hon. members of this house Macdonald is a legend. To us Macdonald represents Canada itself and his image crosses party lines in this regard, in the same way Laurier represents Canada to many people. Laurier represents a fine period of accomplishment which was achieved under his civic administration. His patriotic desire to serve his country came from the same springs which were the source of Macdonald's.
The question is: Who was Macdonald? I have done a little research and have found a handy little book in our library. As I walked out of there with the book there came to me a realization of the fact that the library was built by men of Macdonald's ilk, men who have gone before and have left something for us that will last forever. The book dates back to 1880 and I have obtained the following information from it which should be interesting to hon. members. The book is the Canadian Parliamentary Companion and Annual Register of 1880. I believe it corresponds to our Parliamentary Guide of today.
Macdonald, the right hon. Sir John Alexander, K.C.B., D.C.L. (Oxon), L.L.D., Q.C. (Victoria, B.C.) -
I take it that is where that honorary title was conferred on him.
-privy councillor. Eldest son of the late Hugh Macdonald, Esq., of Kingston, Ont., and formerly of Sutherlandshire, Scotland.
Our first prime minister was born in Scotland and came to Canada as a very young child.
Born 11th January, 1815. Educated at Royal Grammar school, Kingston, under Dr. Wilson, a fellow of Oxford university. Married first, Isabella, daughter of the late Alexander Clark, Esq., of Dainavert, Invernessshire, Scotland. She died 1856; second, 1867, Susan Agnes, daughter of the late hon. T. J. Bernard, a member of Her Majesty's privy council of the island of Jamaica.
Studied law with the late Mr. George Mackenzie and was called to the bar, Upper Canada, hilary term, 1336. Created a Q.C. 1846.
That was in the illustrious reign of our great sovereign, Victoria.
A bencher, ex officio, of the law society of Ontario; and head of the extensive law firm of Macdonald, Macdonald and Marsh, Toronto. Is the grand representative in Canada of the grand lodge

Historic Sites and Monuments of ancient free and accepted masons of England and holds the rank of a past grand senior warden of the freemasons of Canada.
Remember that he was alive at the time this was written and that is why it is written in the present tense.
Was a member of the executive council of Canada from 11 May, 1847, to 10 March, 1848 in the administration of the late hon. Mr. Morris-
That is approximately about the time he lived in this house in Kingston which is now the property of the people of Canada.
-from 11 September, 1854, to 29 July, 1858, in the McNab-Morin, the Tache-Macdonald, and the Macdonald-Cartier administrations; from 6 August same year to 23 May, 1862, in the Cartier-Macdonald administration; and from 30 March, 1864, until the union in the Tache-Macdonald and the Belleau-Macdonald administrations; and was during these several periods, receiver general from 21 May to 7 December, 1847; commissioner of crown lands from latter date to 10 March, 1848; attorney general for Upper Canada from 11 September, 1854, to 29 July, 1858, when as prime minister he and his cabinet resigned, being defeated on the seat of government question.
Remember that it was about this time, 1858, that the city of Ottawa became the capital of Canada.
Returned to office 6 August same year as postmaster general, a position he resigned the following day on his re-appointment as attorney general, Upper Canada, which he continued to hold until the defeat of the administration on the militia bill, May, 1862, when he and his colleagues again retired from office. The late Sir George E. Cartier and he led the opposition in the assembly until the defeat of the Sandfield-Macdonald-Dorion government. when the Tache-Macdonald government was formed, 30 March, 1864, and he returned to his old office of attorney general and was government leader in the assembly from that time until the union of the British American provinces, 1867. Held the office of minister of militia affairs jointly with that of attorney general from January to May, 1862, and from August, 1865, until the union. Was requested to take the place of Sir E. P. Tache as prime minister on the death of that gentleman in 1865 but waived his claim in favour of Sir N. F. Belleau. Has been a delegate to England and other countries on public business on many occasions and was a delegate to the conference in Charlottetown in 1864, which had been convened for the purpose of effecting a union of the maritime provinces, to that which succeeded it in Quebec, same year, to arrange basis of union of all British American colonies-
As you can see, his career now pyramids to the great task to which he and his colleagues devoted themselves.
-and was chairman of the London colonial conference. 1866-67, when the act of union known as the British North America Act was passed by the imperial parliament. On 1 July, 1867, when the new constitution came into force, was called upon to form the first government for the new dominion, and was sworn of the privy council and was appointed minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, an office he continued to fill until he and his ministry resigned on the Pacific railway charges, 6 November, 1873. In 1871 was appointed one of Her Majesty's joint high commissioners and plenipotentiaries, together with Earl de Grey, now Marquis of Ripon, Sir Stafford Northcote, Sir

Edward Thornton and the right hon. Montague Bernard, to act in connection with five commissioners named by the president of the United States for the settlement of the Alabama claims and of matters in dispute between Great Britain and the United States, the labours of which joint high commission resulted in the treaty of Washington signed at Washington on 8 May, 1871.
Received degree of D.C.L. (hon.) from Oxford university, 1865. Is also LL.D. of Queen's university, Kingston, and a D.C.L. of university of Trinity college, Toronto. Created Knight Commander of the Bath, civil, by Her Majesty, July, 1867. Created a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Isabel la Catolica, of Spain, January, 1872. Nominated a member of Her Majesty's most honourable privy council, July, 1872, and sworn in August, 1879. Unanimously elected leader of the Canadian Liberal Conservative opposition, 6 November, 1873. Sat for Kingston in Canadian assembly from November, 1844, until the union. Returned for same seat in the Commons at general election, 1867, at general election, 1872 and at general election, 1874. Unseated on petition, 21 November, 1874; reelected 29 December, 1874. Contested the city of Kingston at last general election when he was defeated. Immediately afterwards was elected by acclamation for Marquette, Manitoba, which he vacated by having accepted office as premier and minister of the interior on 17 October, 1878, which position he now holds. Was then elected with Mr. DeCosmos for Victoria, B.C., for which he is now senior member. The following are among the principal measures which have been carried through parliament by the right hon. knight.
This should be very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members because it gives in capsule form a list of the accomplishments of our first prime minister. They are as follows:
The secularization of the clergy reserves; the improvement of the criminal laws; the promotion of public instruction; the consolidation of the statutes; the extension of the municipal system; the reorganization of the militia; the settlement of the seat of government question; the establishment of direct steam mail communication with Europe; the establishment of additional penitentiaries, criminal lunatic asylums and reformatory prisons, and providing for the inspection thereof; the providing for the internal economy for the House of Commons;
This is one of the features upon which we all depend in this body. I continue reading the list:
-the reorganization of the civil service on a permanent basis; the construction of the Intercolonial Railway; the enlargement of the canals-
This last item seems fairly unimportant today because our internal canals are used mostly for tourist and pleasure purposes, but I remind hon. members that at that time our canal system was our main means of communication because activity in relation to railways had barely started. I continue reading the list:
-the enactment of a stringent election law; the ratification of the Washington treaty; the confederation of British North America and the extension and consolidation of the dominion. In his position as leader of the opposition, Sir John, on several occasions, gave the late government the

benefit of his ability and long experience in perfecting several of their most important measures, notably the insolvent act and the act constituting the supreme court of the dominion.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a resume of the activities of our first prime minister during that period.
Now, what does Macdonald mean to the land he represented? What does he mean to Kingston? What does he mean to Lennox? What does he mean at the present time to my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox? I remind hon. members that at one time he did run for office when the seat of government was in Toronto, and he was one of the earliest representatives of the county of Lennox. Lennox, Mr. Speaker, is the land of Macdonald. It, along with the whole of the bay of Quinte district is included in the sphere of influence of this great man during his lifetime. In the county towns of Picton and Napanee there are still a few people who remember Macdonald. These people probably remember him when he was beginning his career, and they were tiny children.
The influence of this great man is indelibly stamped on the city of Kingston. In passing, I would say that every time I go from Ottawa to my riding and I go by the southern route, especially at night, every time we come within view of that city, and its lights spread below us I call it "Mother Kingston". Kingston has been the social, legal and civic centre for our section of Ontario during the pioneer days. I should like also to remind hon. members that Kingston is not the oldest section of our part of the province. Adolphustown, the place where Macdonald lived as a child, is just as old as Kingston, and Napanee and Picton are just a little younger. Adolphustown is recognized also as one of the landing points of the United Empire Loyalists. No Canadian can visit the old restored cemetery there today without thinking of the origin of his country and its proud heritage. As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, the loyalists were the original settlers of Prince Edward-Lennox and Macdonald became their great protagonist. The principles that were born here at Adolphustown have been inculcated and maintained in many other places across this country, and they still hold good today. I wish to put a quotation on the record referring to these loyalists, their memorial at Adolphustown on the bay of Quinte, and the civil legacy they have bequeathed to Canada.
Draw near Canadian, your destiny Was nourished in the turf on which you stand. This burnished benchmark of a broad new land Enfolds the dust of those who made you free. Now look beyond this anchorage of rest,
Their greater living monument command The architecture of this patriot band.
One mould monolith from east to west.
These exiled poor, the potent leavening
Historic Sites and Monuments
That blends forever through our nation's sod
Burst on these regions like the breath of spring
With faith in flag and love for law and God,
Their legacy, dominion lithe and strong,
Their eulogy, a great triumphant song.
These are the words about which I like to think when I think about Macdonald, the land of Lennox where he lived as a boy. This is what every loyal Canadian in the bay of Quinte district likes to think about when they think of the hard, tough role that was played by the loyalists and their contemporaries, by those great leaders who have gone ahead and who have built what we have here today.
I am sure hon. members would like to be reminded of the fact that right in this air space, when discussing the building of this centre block, those men stood debating and solving the difficult problems of their time, probably problems far more difficult to them than ours are to us, problems that faced a young country in the 1860's.
Macdonald had help. No man can do things alone. Hon. members have found that out before they came here, in their municipalities and in the work which led up to their coming here. Macdonald had the faculty of getting things done and of getting men to work with him.


Mr. Winch:: Are you referring to the C.P.R.?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I am not referring to that alone, although the same thing applies there too.


Mr. Maiheson:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: There will be time for you to make your remarks later. Speaking on March 6, 1865, during the parliamentary debates on confederation, Macdonald said:
The government will, therefore, at once state that it is our design to press, by all proper and parliamentary modes of procedure within our power, for an early decision of the house-yes or no-whether they approve of this scheme-
-namely, confederation-
-or do not. One great reason, among others, calling for promptness, is to provide as much as possible against the reaction which will take place in England from the disappointment that will pervade the minds of the people of England, if they get the impression that the project of the union of the provinces is abandoned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. MacNaughl:: I think it would be the opinion of the house to allow him to continue, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent for the hon. member to continue his remarks?
1228	HOUSE OF
Historic Sites and Monuments


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I wish to thank hon. members for their kind consideration. To continue the quotation, Macdonald said:
I believe that ii one thing more than another has raised British America, or the Province of Canada, its chief component part, in the estimation of the people and government of England, it is that by this scheme there was offered to the Mother Country a means by which these colonies should cease to be a source of embarrassment, and become, in fact, a source of strength.
That illustrates the foresight that he and his colleagues had, looking forward to the day when this great conglomeration of states and provinces would become a source of strength to the motherland. What an underestimation that was, after almost a century in which Canada has played her noble part, and now one nation free and independent from sea to sea.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, Macdonald had help. He had a great colleague and great political ally in Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, the leader of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec. In order to keep properly on this theme I cite the great Gallic attitude toward confederation at that time, as portrayed by Sir Georges Etienne Cartier.
[Translation}
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the words spoken by Macdonald's political partner, Georges-Etienne Cartier, in 1865, as reported in the third edition "L'Histoire du Canada par les Textes":
Therefore, the confederation of all British provinces must take place, otherwise we shall join the American confederation.
As the audience showed its disagreement to such a consequence, he further stated:
I knew you would react like this, and I am pleased with your protests. I know that all those present wish to complete this great national task which will unite together all the main interests of the colonies and make of us all a real nation.
I am not claiming that this nation will be separate from the mother country. But when I talk about creating a confederation, I mean that the powers given to the various provinces by the imperial government will be combined and entrusted to a single general government. And, if that happens, I will feel that I contributed to a wonderful achievement-

I now wish to make a comment regarding another matter but which concerns the preservation of our national historic sites. I quote from the Toronto Star, that great Toronto organ, a free newspaper, thanks to Macdonald and our forefathers, which at the end of a rather long editorial which I am sure all hon. members received, said, "A nation which forgets its past is likely to have a short future." I am sure all hon. members agree
[The Acting Speaker.]

with that truth, and that Canada as one nation will never forget her past as she guards her future nationhood.
In conclusion I wish to thank all hon. members for the support which they have given to this motion, and I again wish to commend all those who were connected with it and with the project of preserving the residence of our first prime minister, namely "Bellevue" in the city of Kingston.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak only briefly concerning this particular motion. As I mentioned when I raised a point of order at the opening of this debate, the government-and also speaking for myself personally-certainly are in favour of the resolution as put forward. As a matter of fact the government was so in favour of it that it had carried out the intent of the motion, and not only considered but decided upon the acquisition of this particular property before the motion was put on the order paper.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack) on his remarks with respect to Sir John A. Macdonald, and I should like to join with him in his eulogy of this great Canadian. I am proud to represent in the House of Commons the riding which was formerly represented by Sir John A. Macdonald. I think Sir John A. Macdonald was certainly one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of the architects of confederation- one of the men who brought this nation together and created the relationship between the French and the English in this country, which made the creation of Canada possible.
I believe that we in Canada do not honour our great Canadians enough. Certainly, I was proud and happy that the government should have made the decision to purchase "Bellevue" house at 35 Centre street in Kingston. This house, built between 1841 and 1843 when Kingston was the legislative capital of the united Canadas, is one of the earliest known examples of the Italian villa style of architecture in Canada. It is located in an attractive residential area of Kingston, among several other homes and estates built during the construction boom that followed the selection of Kingston as the new capital. John A. Macdonald, who was then a member of parliament, moved into "Bellevue" with his wife, infant son and servants in August, 1848. He rented the house from the owner Charles Hale, until late 1849 or early 1850. Although the house was both large and expensive, he chose it in the hope that the semi-rural setting would benefit his ailing

wife and because several of his political associates and clients lived in the neighbourhood.


An hon. Member:: A rural setting in
Kingston?


Edgar John Benson: I should like to point out that this particular house which was then in a rural area is now in the heart of the city in a prized residential area.
Before moving into "Bellevue", Sir John successfully contested the election of February, 1848, although the Tory party to which he belonged was defeated.
When this question was first brought to his attention, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) decided immediately that the present government should acquire this property, and I concur in this decision to have the Kingston house preserved. Although it is true that Sir John A. Macdonald did not live there for a long period, it is the last house in Kingston still standing with which Sir John A. Macdonald had a connection, and I believe it is fitting that Kingston, the riding which was represented by him should possess some suitable monument to remind people of his connection with the constituency.
As I mentioned earlier, it was decided on December 23, after negotiations in which I am pleased to have played a part, that the federal government should purchase this property from its owner, Dr. J. M. R. Beveridge, at a cost of $35,000. The Prime Minister stated at the time of the purchase that it would be suitably renovated and kept as an historic monument in the city of Kingston to Sir John A. Macdonald. As a matter of fact, in January, 1964, a team of national parks branch specialists examined the house. A preliminary plan for restoration has since been drawn up. This will cover essential repairs to the house, restoration of interior details to the period of the 1840's, refurnishing of the rooms and appropriate landscaping of the grounds. In this connection I should like to pay tribute to the Kingston historical association and to Mr. Phelps of Kingston who have expressed great interest in this project. The association has gone so far as to indicate it will assist the government of Canada to whatever extent may be necessary so as to ensure that this property is outfitted as a fitting monument to Sir John A. Macdonald.
I believe that in addition to this Kingston property there is another residence in Canada, Earnscliffe, in Ottawa, presently occupied by the United Kingdom high commissioner, which had a long association with Sir John A. Macdonald, and it is my personal feeling that the government of Canada should ultimately acquire this property and establish the former home of Sir John A. Macdonald in the
Historic Sites and Monuments capital of Canada as a fitting memorial to him. I believe it was altogether right that the government should have purchased the property in Kingston, because Sir John A. Macdonald is looked upon as Kingston's most famous son, and the fact that he was the first prime minister of Canada and did so much both for the city of Kingston and for our country as a whole makes him obviously deserving of commemoration. This government,
I am proud to say, took action in this connection, although previous governments such as the Conservative government which immediately preceded it, failed to take action to acquire the property, although such a course was urged upon them by many of the citizens of Kingston riding.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member who has just spoken has, perhaps indirectly, brought to the attention of the house a question I had in mind, namely the basis upon which the government makes decisions on the subject of historic sites generally-what precisely constitutes a historic site and which of these sites should be bought by the people of Canada.
Everybody honours, or should honour, the name of Sir John A. Macdonald, one of the founders of confederation. Nobody will question the contribution he made to this country, and nobody will question his ability, although I will say that on occasions such as this there can be a little too much sanctimonious talk. I could not help recalling when we were listening to the historical review given by the hon. member who moved this motion that though, undoubtedly, there were times meriting cheers for Sir John A.-and there should be cheers-at the same time there were plenty of times for jeers, too. One has only to remember the history of the C.P.R., and Van Horne, and the politics of that day. However, all that is a long time in the past. We all admit the great contribution made to this country by Sir John A. Macdonald and we all agree that his contribution should be recognized by its commemoration in connection with a historic site. However, I should like to know the basis upon which these historic sites are chosen, whether they affect a man, a city or a province.
The city of Vancouver is the third largest city in Canada. Yet when we want to get the place from which Vancouver started that is New Brighton park, established on the basis of a national historic site, we have to go through a committee. If the committee says no, then the government says no. On what basis are such decisions made? Also, in honouring a great prime minister, on what basis does the government decide that the location should be selected? In recent weeks

Historic Sites and Monuments I have read a great deal in newspapers and magazines to the effect that this great prime minister Sir John A. Macdonald hated and despised this house in Kingston. He lived there for only seven months, called it a monstrosity and wanted to get out of it.
If all the newspaper reports and history are correct, and that is the true situation, on what basis does the government make a decision to buy this house, and not the one in the city of Ottawa where he lived for years? Is there some basis of priority? I do not know, and I think we should know. In no way do I wish to deprecate the idea of this government honouring Sir John A. Macdonald's memory and acquiring a residence which will be maintained over the years as a reminder of this man's great history, but I strongly believe that when decisions of this nature are made there should be some understanding as to the basis and the principle upon which they are made.
However, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by just saying that as the decision has been made-and all honour to Kingston that it has been made-I sincerely hope that the proposal will be considered, and considered in the near future, of having the home of Sir John A. Macdonald in Ottawa maintained as an historic site and monument, as is today and has been for years the home of Mackenzie King. It is my understanding-only from reports- that the United Kingdom government would give very serious consideration to any request from the government of Canada with regard to the purchase of that home for this specific purpose. I hope this will be kept uppermost in mind by the government.


Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in this recommendation.


Mr. Fisher:: Don't talk it out, killer.


John Ross Matheson: I have been interested in this Centre street property since being elected to this house in the middle of 1961. I have visited it several times and over two years ago discussed the possibility of the purchase of this property with Mr. Ian Imrie, one of our research experts in the historical section of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I think we regret, as the hon. member just mentioned, that Sir John A. did in fact live at "Bellevue" for such a very short period of time. Perhaps one of the things-


Harold Edward Winch: He also lived in Victoria, on Vancouver island.


John Ross Matheson: Yes, and elsewhere in the Kingston area. One of the things to which we should give consideration in due time is Sir John A.'s grave, which is a rather shabby


looking resting place for the first prime minister of this country. I know that one does not disturb graveyards-at least, one effects changes very cautiously-but I am sure the condition of this grave would bring pain to many members of parliament. I have been there at different times with my children and with visitors whom I have brought to the Cataraqui cemetery. I know hon. members would not be satisfied with the appearance of the final resting place of the first prime minister of Canada. One of the difficulties, of course, in doing a really good job on this Centre street residence is to adequately restore two residences, one in Ottawa and one in Kingston.


Harold Edward Winch: How about Victoria, where he was welcomed after Kingston kicked him out?


Neil Alexander Matheson: It seems clear that to furnish the residences in Kingston and in Ottawa with authentic Macdonald furniture would be quite impossible. However, we have artisans who can very effectively copy the furniture of that period, and we have developed a good deal of experience in this sort of thing in Upper Canada Village on the Crysler farm property. I have no doubt that when the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources have finished with this project, it will have been done creditably and well. The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources might be interested in looking at an old stone law office of Sir John A., which I think could be acquired and perhaps should be acquired by the country. It is very much as it was, and is still there. This is a property with which Sir John A. was associated, not for a few months but for many years. I am sure there is wide support from all hon. members of this house for this motion, and it is not my purpose to detain the house any longer.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Mr. Alkenbrack, seconded by-


Edgar John Benson: The hon. member is not in the house.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, can we reasonably and legitimately pass a motion dealing with something that has already been done? The property is about to be acquired, plans are being laid to achieve the objectives of the motion and to restore the property to its condition at the time

Sir John A. lived there, including the furnishings and all the other accessories, so it will be a proper and fitting shrine and memorial to Sir John A. and the town of Kingston. It would seem to me that this is a very desirable and worthy thing. I think we all agree that we should do this, and it seems rather pointless to put a motion through the House of Commons saying that we want to do this when the action necessary to have it done has already been taken.
I think that to pass this motion would serve very little useful purpose. We on this side of the house are sometimes accused of being partisan, and rightly so; but I think we on this side respect this person as much as anybody in any part of the house. We respect him as much as people across the country, and are very anxious to see that this residence is turned into a fitting shrine, paying tribute to this great Canadian leader. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


David George Hahn: I think it is very, very close to six o'clock.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Sir John A. Macdonald is surely worth another minute.


David George Hahn: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I still have the floor. I have not yielded the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you stand there, it will be six o'clock in 30 seconds.


Douglas Mason Fisher: You will never die, Sir John A.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just stand pat, like the Liberals.
18. 1964	1231
Business of the House


David George Hahn: I think, Mr. Speaker, we should all recognize that the action to acquire and renovate this property has been taken by this government. Those on the other side of the house who would like to see a vote taken should bear in mind that it is a Liberal government which has put into motion the plans to acquire a memorial to one of the great Conservative leaders of this country. I think this is something that should be recognized and is a tribute to this government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.
It being six o'clock, the hour for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, will the house leader announce the business for tomorrow and perhaps Friday.


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that by consent we extend the time in order that the hon. member might finish his speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would embarrass him.


Guy Favreau: It is my hope that we can commence the budget debate early tomorrow afternoon. As soon as the motion which was debated this afternoon has been disposed of, the budget debate will commence and will continue throughout the day and throughout Friday. Tomorrow we shall be in a position to announce the business for the whole of next week until the recess.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. March 19. 1964