1968-02-27

Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I have been since last Thursday, and still am, a butt for virulent insinuations on the part of unscrupulous journalists, both French and English-speaking, who criticize the stand we took Wednesday with regard to the motion now before the house.
Mr. Speaker, I am accused of having made a bargain with the government. People wonder what happened between Monday and Wednesday to bring about a change in attitude on the part of the leader of the Rallie-ment des Creditistes and his group. Mr. Speaker, I will answer that what happened between Monday and Wednesday is simply that the motion now under consideration was introduced in the house, and that is all.
When, in the newspaper Le Devoir, Mr. Claude Ryan states that I met with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mar-chand) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), he is lying baldly and dishonestly. The same is true for the other journalists who wrote the same thing. I exchanged only a few words with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who asked me if we were opposed to the motion being discussed immediately after its introduction on Wednesday, disregarding the 48-hour notice required by the rules of the house. That was the only thing discussed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself. At that time, I gave my word to the effect that we did not see any objection to the motion being discussed last Wednesday.
Therefore, newspapermen or members of other parties who attribute us bad intentions are acting dishonestly and I must say emphatically that our position has not been the object of any bargaining. Moreover, to those who asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) whether he had offered to make me a senator I could have said: There are eight vacancies in the other place; we are eight members of the Ralliement Creditiste, and we are quite willing to fill those vacancies. But that was not the case.
To those who asked me whether the Prime Minister had offered me trips at the expense of the state, I must reply that I can travel abroad without my emoluments as member of parliament and without the intervention of any government.
So, I want to protest strongly against such dishonest and malevolent insinuations made by the press. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that my reputation, my integrity and my honesty are comparable to those of all the people who are now writing against me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have received notice of a second question of privilege from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.



MR. CHURCHILL-ANNOUNCEMENT OF CHANGE IN PARTY AFFILIATION

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege to announce that it is my intention to sit in the house as an independent Conservative.
I am taking this step after careful and long consideration, and with deep regret. The issue before the house is so fundamental to our parliamentary system and so dangerous to our freedom that I cannot justify to my conscience to surrender now of part of our freedom in the hope that it may be regained at some uncertain time in the future. That runs counter to my experience of life and to my understanding of mankind's long and painful struggle for freedom. The decision of the Progressive Conservative party to capitulate at this time is so contrary to the principles of the party, as I understand them, that I prefer to have complete freedom to express my views in the debate without embarrassment to my colleagues.
February 27, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry [DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
At the earliest convenient opportunity I will meet with the members of the executive of the Progressive Conservative party of Winnipeg South Centre and in consultation with them take whatever action is considered appropriate.
I shall continue to maintain a friendly and sympathetic interest in the Conservative party, in the hope that at some time in the future it will once again command my steadfast and unswerving support.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis).



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to rise on a question of privilege?


Gilles Grégoire: Just on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Our standing orders provide for a question period and since you just called the orders of the day, I was rising to ask a question before we proceed with the orders of the day.
I have precisely a question to put to the hon. Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will admit that since the other day, apparently by tacit agreement among the hon. members, there has been no question period. I believe that it is still the wish of the house.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal or informal agreement on that matter. No motion to that effect has been put before the house and I have never heard of such an agreement, tacit or otherwise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question to ask, he should put it immediately, in order to settle the matter.


Gilles Grégoire: I have one question to put, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I even have two.
I should like to put my first question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
In view of the fact that two Montrealers, Vallieres and Gagnon, have been detained in 
prison for a year and a half, without even an opportunity for trial, which is further delayed-


Mr. Starr:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps before the hon. member for Ontario raises a point of order I might tell the hon. member for Lapointe that he is asking a question about a matter which is clearly sub judice. He is referring to a trial which is now in progress in Montreal. I believe the question is out of order.


Michael Starr: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. You had passed orders of the day, the Assistant Clerk had read the motion, and you had recognized the hon. member for Cape Breton South. There was no need to revert to another order of procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in agreement with the hon. member, but it was just to facilitate the progress of business this afternoon that I thought I would allow the hon. member to ask a question. I have told him that the question is not in order. I suggest to the hon. member that I can hardly perceive of any question which is so urgent it might not wait a day or so before being put.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the standing orders are there and I ask that they be adhered to. Under the heading "Order of business", a forty minute question period is provided for on Tuesday. The clerk of the house has not read the orders of the day or the matter to be discussed. As soon as you said "Orders of the day", I rose and said: "Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question."
Under the standing orders, there should be a question period and I have every right to put a question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will agree that I have allowed him, nevertheless, to put his question.
On the other hand, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) made a quite legitimate point, suggesting that 1 had already called the orders of the day.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, you call the orders of the day every day at the beginning of the question period. It was at that point that I rose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
February 27, 1968	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the house will again agree to facilitate the work of the house and the task of the Chair. The hon. member said he had two questions. One is out of order but we have not heard the other.


Gilles Grégoire: I do not need the consent of the other members. I am in order and I do not need anyone's consent to put questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
could perhaps put his question.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to put my question. There is no question at all of sub judice.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that he may not allude to that subject. It is clearly out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: I was not alluding to it Mr. Speaker. If you will listen to my question, you will see that the point I want to bring up is-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. If the hon. member wishes to go to the orders of the day then I think he needs the unanimous consent of the house. He is not going to get it at this time, because we are now engaging in a debate that is before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members appreciate that it is so difficult to know at exactly what point orders of the day are called or are not called. It seems to me it would be easier for all concerned to allow the hon. member to ask his question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a matter of common sense, I suggest to hon. members.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I know the difference between what is sub judice and what is not. If you will allow me to put my question, you will see that it is very important, because two Montrealers have been detained in prison for a year and a half without having been allowed a trial-


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker-
DEBATES	7021
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member for Cape Breton South kindly assist me? I will recognize him in a moment. I should like to give the hon. member for Lapointe an opportunity to explain to me his question.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question as follows: Since two Montrealers, Gagnon and Vallieres, have been in jail for a year and a half, without being brought to trial and since the case has been adjourned sine die, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he intends to use the Bill of Rights, so that both individuals may be brought to trial immediately or granted bail.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must maintain the ruling which I gave a moment ago.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respectfully submit that the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is of the most fundamental importance. Apparently some young men have been held without trial for 18 months. I submit the minister should be asked whether he will deal with this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I read reports of the trial this morning, but I have to go by the information I have. If I am wrong, then after considering the matter further perhaps the question can be permitted tomorrow.

t LABOUR RELATIONS



SUGGESTED DELAY IN CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS BEFORE BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, a 40-minute period is allowed for questions and I wish to direct another question to the Minister of Labour.
In view of the fact that the Canada Labour Relations Board has made a decision on a matter now under consideration by a committee of the house, does the minister intend to ask the Canada Labour Relations Board to postpone the implementation of this decision until the legislation is passed here?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question could be placed on the order paper.
7022	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is overtaxing the patience of the house as well as my own.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if there are other members who have questions to ask, they are free to do so, but I think that there is a 40-minute period allowed for the questions. I should like to direct a question, which I think is urgent, to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether it is true the Laurendeau-Dunton commission has refused to issue the second part of its report on bilingualism and bi-culturalism?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest this question is not of an urgent nature and should be put on the order paper.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



MOTION RESPECTING HOUSE VOTE ON BILL C-193

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 26, consideration of the motion of the Prime Minister:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling on the hon. member for Cape Breton South may I thank the house for its forbearance and assistance to the Chair.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the house will understand how difficult it is for me to speak on this occasion. The actions of this government have caused an hon. member of this house who has given long, devoted and loyal service to his party to resign from that party. I am sure my colleagues agree that his association with our party has made him much beloved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: I trust that the defendants in this trial-and it is a trial; it was so referred to by the Minister of

DEBATES	February 27, 1968
Finance-will remain in their seats longer this afternoon than they remained yesterday afternoon. Yesterday, when there was too much heat in the kitchen, some of them scurried away. I refer particularly to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope that more than two cabinet ministers will remain to hear what is being said.
It was unfortunate that the hon. member for Lapointe should raise the matter of two men being held in jail. Though this government could help them, they are being held in jail. But then this government should not be entirely condemned for its attitude; after all, its actions on the other side of the ledger tend to even the score. I am referring to a former Liberal member who was made a judge. He was tried, sentenced to two years in prison, and he has not served a day of that time up to the present. Despite his conviction this government continues to pay him his salary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member will be cautious in his remarks relating to the judiciary.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if I must remain cautious in my remarks about a man who has been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ought to have added that the matter the hon. member has referred to is also before the courts.


An hon. Member:: It is under appeal.


Malcolm MacInnis: I will not say any more except that there is a precedent in this house, with this matter already having been referred to.
I want to speak about the government and about the make-up of the cabinet in which we are asked to vote confidence. Last night I was reviewing the divisions in the Liberal party that have been apparent for a number of years, and I referred to members of cabinet. For the Prime Minister's benefit I shall repeat some of the things I said.
The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) spoke in the west about the phasing out of the Sydney steel operation. At the same time in the House of Commons the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) was saying that it would be ridiculous for the government to make plans. Another example of division was when the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) refused to sit next to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing). The cabinet blamed the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) for
February 27, 1968	COMMONS
prodding the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) into that fatal move last Monday night. Outside the house the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) said the Minister of Transport started the prodding.
Despite the Prime Minister's utterances outside the house about a plot, the Minister of Finance responded to prodding on that Monday night. For the Prime Minister to charge a plot is ridiculous. That is a most dishonest approach, especially when one considers what the Prime Minister had to say when he returned to the house. As I remember, his opening remarks were that there had been no collusion. That statement does not tie in with what he said to the Canadian people about a plot.
They tried their best to prove that the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) had made this statement. A tape was made; that tape was taken to the Prime Minister's office and checked, and they found that the reference to the plot was not what they were looking for, so they did not push that. They went back to the house and said there was no collusion. But there was collusion outside the house, by their own admission. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) explained before a television audience that the only conversation he had held with a minister of the government was when he bumped into one in a television studio. Yet in the press the same day the Prime Minister was reported as saying that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) had talked this matter over with the hon. member for Villeneuve. There is collusion, Mr. Prime Minister, and you are up to your neck in it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must address his remarks to the Chair.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, there is collusion and the Prime Minister is up to his neck in it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
right hon. gentleman seems to think this matter is rather amusing. It is not amusing when we think of the state of affairs he has brought about and which we have witnessed in this house the last few days. It is not amusing when we consider what has happened to an hon. member of this house. It is not amusing when we examine what the right hon. gentleman's own supporters and ministers are doing.
DEBATES	7023
Motion Respecting House Vote
It is my understanding that the Liberals, especially those who are running for the leadership, are under instructions to keep their mouths shut. They have been told "Don't get into this debate; keep your noses clean". There was a row about the fact that the Minister of Finance was the only candidate to get into this debate. Hon. members opposite are fighting this issue among themselves, as they are fighting many other issues among themselves.
It must be interesting to the Prime Minister to read the only speech made by a Liberal member in this house yesterday, in the course of which he expressed the hope that the new Liberal leader would bring about true Liberalism in this country. What are the ministers of the crown doing? They are criticizing the leadership all the way. Take the Prime Minister's seatmate, his old friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Jack Benny of the Liberal party. What has he had to say about the Prime Minister's leadership? In Halifax he told Nova Scotia Liberals that what the Liberal party needs today is strong leadership. If that is not a reflection on the present Liberal leadership, what is it? It is bound to be a reflection on the Prime Minister. I could go along the line and pick out contradictions by each and every one of those ministers opposite, one against the other.
Not long ago we were witnesses to one of the most unusual spectacles we have seen in this house in a long time, certainly since I have been here, when we saw two Liberal ministers standing up in this chamber and taking opposite sides on a vote. Yet the Prime Minister talks about unity and solidarity within the cabinet. Mr. Speaker, they have been split down the middle a dozen ways for the last five years.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is not the only party member who has been talking about the leadership. And while I am speaking about the minister for external affairs let me point out that he is now obliged to go to the convention bearing the cross of an alliance with the Creditistes. Despite what his tactics may have been before this particular development, the fact that there has been collusion between the Liberals and the Credi-tiste party is a cross which he will not be able to carry to the Liberal convention and survive; and this cross has been placed on his shoulders by none other than his old friend the Prime Minister. With friends like that, who needs enemies.
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
The Secretary of State for External Affairs says the time has come for strong leadership, a reflection on the present leadership. Then there is the Minister of Finance, who said in Halifax weeks ago, long before this particular crisis developed, "Some of my colleagues won't speak to me." All this is recorded for posterity; it was a statement made over national television. If any minister wishes to get up and deny the accusations I am making, which reflect on the Prime Minister and the Liberal leadership, he is free to do so and I will come forward with the proof.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Some of the cabinet ministers have continually contradicted statements made outside this house. Last night, during the few moments that were at my disposal, I thought for a minute that that great expert on the constitution, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), was going to rise and have something to say. The other day I noticed that when the leader of the New Democratic party mentioned his name he picked up his papers and rushed from the house, and he was still rushing when he got out where the television cameras were because he was climbing over the balcony to get away from the very thing he was courting the week before.
That constitutional expert has not opened his mouth on this crisis. Not one minister opposite has got up and done anything in the way of supporting the motion brought forward by the Prime Minister. Why? It is because they agree that the leadership they are getting is weak. What is this fight all about? It is only about one thing, to save Pearson's face. It is the Pearson pride. Some time ago it was indicated that the Prime Minister had every intention of retiring. What we are doing now is only holding back that retirement for a month or so. The Prime Minister went before the Canadian people and said there would have to be an election soon. June was mentioned. September was mentioned. In the same breath he said that a decision on an election would have to be made by the new leader of the Liberal party.
What do we hear from that potential leader over there, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) ? He should be ashamed of the situation where he has been accused of something in this house, but he does not have the intestinal fortitude to get up and defend his government's position. Of course lack of intestinal fortitude is something that minister

has shown all along. Here is a potential leader of the Liberal party who says he would not call an election before 1969.
We also have the Minister of Finance as a potential leader, and he too says he would not call an election before 1969. We also have an outsider running for the Liberal leadership; and when I say outsider I mean outside that particular group over there, and I think that is a good thing. These potential leaders of the Liberal party say they would postpone an election until 1969, but the present leader says that eventually the people of the country will have to decide this issue.
What is the issue? We are asked to vote confidence in a government the members of which do not have confidence in one another. You name a minister and I will get you a contradiction from another minister. They don't even sit together any more. We had to rearrange the seating in this house for them. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), taking advantage of the fact that he is a potential leader of the party, cast reflections on two other ministers. When the Minister of Finance was asked the question directly as to whether the Minister of Transport had prodded him into his present situation he would not confirm it. I say again that accusation was in the question, but the minister would not confirm it.
So what do we have? We have potential leaders of the Liberal party who, despite the fact that they were told by the Prime Minister to stay close to Ottawa, did not. The Prime Minister takes himself off to Jamaica, running away from the responsibility which was handed to him by the Canadian people in 1965 and which he could have carried until 1970. He continually runs away from this responsibility. There has been absolutely no direction. No responsibility is shown by the Prime Minister. He comes back to this house and says one thing to it, and something else to the people of Canada over television.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to see that the Prime Minister is leaving the chamber. I would like to quote one of his own remarks to him before he goes. We have been faced with dishonest answers in this house, these coming from the Prime Minister himself. Hon. members opposite can run back and tell him about this. He stood up in this house and gave dishonest information to the house on more than one occasion. I will relate briefly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should be cautioned again on his language. I
February 27, 1968

think he is certainly not helping parliament or the House of Commons by using language that is perhaps a bit strong in the circumstances.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I assure you I am being very cautious, and my caution is supported by the written word in the Hansard record. If you want me to cite one case it is backed up by the recorded words in Hansard. It was a case not too long ago when the Prime Minister, in excusing the absence of one of his ministers, said that minister was indisposed and under his doctor's orders. But the next day we had the very minister in question come in and explain his absence by telling the house he was escorting the Shah of Iran. Just try to tell me I cannot back up my accusations that we have dishonest statements, that we have dishonest government, a government that is leading this country down the road to ruin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: I do not
propose at any time to make statements in this house that cannot be verified by the records, statements that show that members of this cabinet day after day have been contradicting one another. I would like to wrap up on this note, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: Thank you, gentlemen; I am glad you appreciate it. Now that they have enticed me to make one more remark I might say for the benefit of Liberal supporters in this house that their discipline is not what it appears to be at all. Discipline is not discipline if it is brought about by either a promise or a threat. The discipline shown by the Liberal party here today can be brought about with some members by the fact that possibly you are going to have your pensions doubled; or then again the discipline may be brought about by the fact that you are faced with the threat that your franking privileges will be cut off or your transportation privileges will be removed. A bunch of sheep-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a genuine feeling of regret that I rise to speak on this matter at this time. I regret being compelled
Motion Respecting House Vote to speak upon a question that I do not believe has any proper place in the order of house business at this time. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, I regret what the government have done to the constitution of parliament and the theory and practice of parliamentary democratic government by their brazen determination to cling to power. In their obsession with office, their arrogant assumption that they and they alone have a right to govern, they have debased parliament and degraded every member forced by their stubborn attitude to take part in these proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We saw something of that this afternoon. Their course is clear following their defeat on a major item of budgetary policy in the House of Commons. They should get out, and not stand upon the order of their going. From a layman's point of view, Mr. Speaker, I contend that you should not have allowed or ordered this motion, worded as it is, to come before this house for consideration. It is a direct contravention of standing order 35 of the House of Commons, which reads in part:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
I repeat the last part of that:
-except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
It is difficult for me, Mr. Speaker, to believe that you have prior knowledge from the government that it is their purpose to rescind the vote if this motion is carried, or even if it is defeated. I ask myself, Mr. Speaker, why then did you allow this motion to come before the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the hon. member's attention that it is entirely out of order, and certainly against the most basic principles of parliamentary procedure, to speak or reflect on the Speaker's position in the way the hon. member is doing now.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, with all deference I will read the order if you-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the point made by the hon. member. He is referring to the procedural aspect of it. He can do that without bringing the Speaker into the argument.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, you are the only authority I recognize in the house at the

February 27, 1968
Motion Respecting House Vote present time. You ordered that this motion come before the house for consideration. At the present time I am considering this motion. You are the only symbol of parliamentary authority left in this country at the present time. I realize that you know the rules better than I do, yet you did not protest or even mention rule 35 when this motion was placed on the order paper; in fact you ordered it be considered.
I am not only casting a reflection on the vote but am wondering, in view of standing order 35, why the Prime Minister was allowed to reflect on the vote of Monday night on a number of occasions during the debate. Even in his opening remarks the Prime Minister reflected on the vote. This was contrary to standing order 35. If the purpose of the motion is not to rescind the vote that was taken in the house on February 19, is there some other rule or procedure which automatically allows the government to rescind the vote which was taken on Bill No. C-193 regardless of how the decision is made on this motion? As reported at page 6923 of Hansard for February 23 the Prime Minister said this:
So far as third reading is concerned they are more emphatic. Erskine May, whom we hear quoted a great deal in the house, has this to say in his seventeenth edition at page 571:
"If the question 'that the bill be now read a third time' "-
This was the question dealt with last Monday night.
"-is negatived, such a vote is not only not necessarily a matter of confidence but is not even necessarily fatal to the further progress of the bill."
We have made it quite clear we are not going to ask for further progress on that bill-*
I find the last four lines of that quotation very strange. I shall repeat them:
"-but is not even necessarily fatal to the further progress of the bill".
We have made it quite clear we are not going to ask for further progress on that bill-
Does the fact that we have debated the motion and are willing to take a vote on it now mean that the vote on Bill No. C-193 is automatically rescinded? Much has been said about the strange wording of the motion itself. I ask whether there is any relationship between the unusual wording of this motion and the remarks of the Prime Minister which I have quoted and which I shall repeat:
"-but is not even necessarily fatal to the further progress of the bill".
We have made it quite clear we are not going to ask for further progress on that bill-
[Mr. McIntosh.!
It is because of this doubt that I cannot vote either for or against the motion, if you as Speaker of the Canadian parliament insist or rule that the motion be put. I also believe that the procedure and the conduct on the part of the government which has been allowed in this house since Monday night are a threat to the supremacy of parliament; because if we proceed with this motion to its conclusion never again will any negative vote against this government or any Canadian government have any meaning. The issue in question could always be forced on parliament for reconsideration after a 48 hour interval. This is the second reason that I cannot vote either for or against the motion which is before the house.
As recorded at page 6921 of Hansard you ordered, Mr. Speaker, that this motion be considered. I think this is a trap that will destroy parliament. I wish to draw your attention to a speech by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean). This speech was made some years ago and will be found at page 4557 of Hansard for June 8, 1955. To me it has a strange relationship to our present debate. With your permission I shall read part of it:
Hitler gained his first important position of power by the passage of a bill in the German parliament. It was a simple bill, and it was said that its provisions would not need to be used and it would do no harm. Just as we have been told now, it was said that the rights of parliament, would not be disturbed or lessened. When I listened to the explanations given by several members of the government- I say this in all sincerity-they unwittingly and by absolute chance reminded me of Hitler's statement in the German parliament when he introduced the enabling bill of which I am speaking. I took the trouble to look up his speech, and these were Hitler's words on that occasion:
"The government will only make use of these powers in so far as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures. Neither the existence of the Reichstag nor that of the Reischrat is menaced".
It would not interfere with either houses of parliament.
"The position and rights of the president remain unaffected. It will always be the foremost task of the government to act in harmony with his aims. The separate existence of the federal states will not be done away with".
In other words it would not interfere with the rights of the provinces.
"The rights of the churches will not be diminished, and their relationship to the state will not be modified. The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one".
The law is justified because the occasions on which you could possibly use it are few and far between.
February 27. 1968	COMMONS
"All the more, however, the government insist upon the passing of the law. They prefer a clear decision".
Every sentence in that statement has a familiar ring.
The hon. member continued:
It is because I believe in the democratic way of life which was established by our forefathers that I think it behooves us to protect that way of life by retaining our parliamentary system which has been gained with such great difficulty.
I feel sincerely that these things must be protected, not only by means of war or military defence but also by the exercise of unspectacular and tedious methods through the use of free speech and seeing that no undemocratic bits of legislation creep into our code of law.
I say again this has a strange relationship to the topic we are discussing at the present time. I am a Conservative because I believe in the principles of this party. There are six principles, three of which I should like to bring to the attention of the house because I believe they have reference to this debate. The first is, preserving the freedom of the citizen. The second is, promoting the development of Canada; and the third is, upholding the supremacy of parliament. I ask myself whether the motion has anything to do with any of these three principles. The strange wording of the motion is as follows:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193 which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
I am of the opinion that a vote on such a motion would be a violation of the three principles I have enunciated. Certainly the freedom of the individual will be diminished. Nothing is more fundamental than the defeat of a tax bill which would interfere with the development of our country. The 5 per cent surtax that went into effect on January 1, and which is vital to the government's policy, was defeated by a vote of this parliament.
There is no doubt that the supremacy of parliament is at stake. Practically every newspaper editor in the country has voiced this opinion. A vote of confidence should not be allowed. This becomes an issue of the supremacy of parliament, and parliament has already expressed its opinion in this regard. We as Canadians believe that parliament is greater than any government or any party.
In keeping with democratic traditions and principles the Prime Minister is duty bound to have the government resign. In fact he has only one more duty to perform, and that is to consult with the Governor General. That is
DEBATES	7027
Motion Respecting House Vote the reason we are here. That is the reason we are giving consideration to the motion that Your Honour allowed to be placed on the order paper.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Much will be said by the constitutional experts on the validity of the motion before us. Many precedents will be presented and debated by the legal experts. The same precedents will be used by both sides in an effort to prove their points. Precedents, like statistics taken from the same source, can be used in an effort to prove both arguments. I intend in a few moments to put some of these precedents on the record. The interpretation of words will no doubt be questioned in the debate by the experts. In fact I have questioned the interpretation of words in our standing orders of the house.
As I said, I am not a legal expert. I asked you, Mr. Speaker, why you allowed this motion to be put on the order paper. Operative words such as those quoted by Dr. Eugene Forsey a few days ago will be questioned. I admit that Dr. Forsey is considered a constitutional authority, and suggest that he should have been asked whether he considers the defeat of Bill C-193 vital to government policy. I am pretty sure his answer would be very interesting.
This is one of the questions the ordinary man on the street, whom I represent, is asking. This is one of the questions that we as backbenchers are asking. Very few of us, as I said before, are legally trained or qualified to enter into a constitutional debate. We, like the ordinary man on the street, look for simple ground rules to follow. An editorial in the Globe and Mail of February 22, under the heading "Breaking Rules for Power" has this to say in part:
The ground rules on which a Canadian government stands or falls are so well known that the Canada Year Book for 1967, published under the authority of Trade and Commerce Minister Robert Winters, was able to state without qualification: "When the cabinet (the government) suffers defeat on a government bill or a vote of censure or on a motion of want of confidence in the Commons, the existing government or cabinet must either resign or request a dissolution from the Governor General."
This is taught to all our students right across Canada. This is commonly understood. It is language that the man on the street understands. It is language that I understand.


Mr. Crouse:: Everybody but a Liberal.
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote


John (Jack) McIntosh: The ordinary, reasonable man on the street, that is the Canadian public, concludes that the government or cabinet must either resign or request dissolution from the Governor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: This editorialist further
states that in his opinion the motion now before the house is a contravention of the house rules, and completes his editorial with these words:
The only answer is dissolution, and the sooner the better.
1 paraphrase my leader's remarks of the other day in the house, and say that this government has no right to put any business before the house, including a motion of confidence. It was defeated on a bill to raise taxes, a fundamental part of the government's program. This was a defeat clearly involving a loss of confidence of the house. The constitutional practice must be respected. It is fundamental to our constitution that the loss of such a fundamental vote of confidence involves resignation or a recommendation for dissolution.
The ordinary man on the street does not believe that the defeat of the government on a budget tax measure, moved by the Minister of Finance, can be anything but a convincing show of lack of confidence in the government by his representatives in parliament. Related to this issue, and clearly understood by the Canadian public, is the government's extravagance, so clearly shown by the Auditor General's report and the recent estimates. They show a sharp increase in most government spending programs. We now have serious inflation, astronomical interest rates, tight money and growing unemployment. As serious as these matters are, they are now exceeded by the political crisis facing parliament, because the supremacy of parliament is what is at stake; Canadian individual freedom is in jeopardy. An editorial in the Toronto Telegram of February 21 states in part:
The government is now badly split between men of conscience and those who would cling to office by any possible means or device.
The editorial also states that the Prime Minister is taking advice from those of his colleagues who would cling to the remnants of power no matter what the cost. The Prime Minister's determination to resort to these tactics puts the responsibility on members of parliament to uphold the institution to which they were elected. If the government is 
upheld, then parliament becomes nothing more than a rubber stamp.
If the house does not have full and final control over money bills, it has full and final control over nothing. The members of this house cannot be asked to play the part of a scapegoat to assume blame for the government's mistakes. I am quite confident that the people I represent in the constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek would be bitterly disappointed if they thought they had elected as a member, from any party, one whose only obligation to them was to act as a scapegoat or a rubber stamp. If there was any idea that such was the function of a member of parliament, I know the party which I support would have had a different candidate.
Such action to my mind completely destroys our democratic process. The whole process behind our form of government is that parliament has ways and means to safeguard the people against the executive branch, who may think it desirable to rule in a dictatorial manner. This is what they are trying to do, rule in a dictatorial manner. It is our duty as members of parliament, I say again, to protect the people against such a process. Winston Churchill once said:
Democracy is the worst form of government ever devised by man-except all others.
It is the best we have, and we must protect it. Asking the house to ignore Monday's vote makes a mockery of the House of Commons. Ignoring the vote strikes at the very heart and essence of constitutional democracy and responsible government. I can understand the attitude of the Prime Minister and the government in attempting to get around the decisive vote against them on Monday evening. They are so desperate to remain in power that they are willing to distort fact, defy precedent and constitutional practice to do so.
I can understand them, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot agree with them nor can I condone their action.
My understanding of their argument is that they claim their defeat was an unfortunate and ridiculous accident, something abnormal and not quite cricket. They further claim, as I understand it, that whatever happened on Monday night, the question upon which they met defeat does not properly constitute a question of lack of confidence.
My understanding of their case as advanced so far is that they now wish to ask this house to reverse itself, to erase the entire proceedings of black Monday and stop trying to
February 27, 1968

interfere with the Liberal party's God-given right to govern Canada. Given such arrogance, it is a wonder they stopped short where they did. With such a vain and distorted viewpoint we might have expected them to bring in a motion of censure against the opposition for having the temerity to defeat them, or even a motion of contempt of parliament.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I find it impossible either to agree with them or to pardon their stubborn arrogance. I recall to the Prime Minister the injunction of Oliver Cromwell, another vain and dictatorial figure:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The government's position, as I conceive it, is that Monday's vote was an accident, third reading is really not an important stage of the bill, and in any event the substance of the bill was not sufficiently important for the vote to be considered a question of confidence in the administration. If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the measure in question was opposed on second reading and throughout the committee stage. There was consistent and growing opposition throughout the different stages of the bill. It simply reached its climax in the final stage on third reading. The crucial stage in the passage of any measure through the house is the final stage. We should all recall that defeat almost came about a few hours earlier on that day on a vote in the committee stage. It was not a freak occurrence, not an accident, nor, least of all, the result of a sinister plot, as has been implied by some of the more desperate ministers opposite. Third reading is as important a stage in our parliamentary procedure as any other and that is why we have third reading.
Let me say in addition that the vote was taken in the midst of a normal working day. There was no opportunity for surprise or skulduggery. Let us get that perfectly clear. The vote against the government was won by the majority of members present and voting. Surely the only valid criterion for parliamentary business is just that. If we believed what the Prime Minister said we would have to wait for 100 per cent attendance before any measure became legal, which is a ridiculous idea.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: What about the capital punishment bill?


John (Jack) McIntosh: The attitude of the government throughout has been that the vote on
Motion Respecting House Vote this question need not be taken as indicating a lack of confidence in the administration. Sir Ivor Jennings, one of the recognized constitutional authorities, has this to say on page 146 of his book, "The British Constitution":
With very rare exceptions, all questions in the House of Commons are matters of confidence.
Dr. Michel Ameller, a distinguished European constitutional scholar, in 1966 prepared a study, called simply "Parliaments", of parliamentary usage in 55 nations for the interparliamentary union. At page 281 of the book he wrote:
The practice today in Great Britain, and generally speaking in all countries influenced by Great Britain, is to regard a vote hostile to the government's policy or administration as a matter of confidence.
The late Professor Harold J. Laski, who needs no introduction by me, wrote at page 184 of his "Parliamentary Government in England":
The defeat of the cabinet by the house involves either a dissolution of parliament or the resignation of the cabinet if it takes place upon a major issue.
Another equally well known and well qualified authority, Byrum E. Carter, in his book "The Office of the Prime Minister", wrote the following at page 258:
-parliament may bring down any government by the simple expedient of withdrawing its support, either through the passage of an outright vote of no confidence, or through the defeat of a major proposal made by the government.
Such unanimity among authorities in any field is rare, but there appears to be a high degree of unanimity on this point among specialists in parliamentary practice. All say there are few exceptions and no exceptions when the vehicle of the government's defeat is a major one.
To be even more exact let me return to Dr. Ameller in his book, "Parliaments", where he wrote the following at page 281:
-the passing of the budget is the most important test of parliamentary confidence in the government.
I should like to remind Your Honour that Dr. Ameller was summing up his studies of the parliamentary practices and customs of 55 democratic nations.
From what I have quoted it may be clearly seen that after such a formally recorded defeat in the House of Commons not only must the government leave office but they have no choice whether they do or not. Once that vote has been officially registered in the records of the house, as it was, they have not
7030	COMMONS DEBATES	February 27/ 1968
Motion Respecting House Vote even the luxury of deciding whether or not it was a vote of confidence. The only reason that parliament is sitting here today is that you, sir, have allowed a motion to be put on the order paper.
As I stated before, the Prime Minister has only one more move to make and that is to go to the Governor General. The government is out, however long it takes them to go through the formal steps of resignation. It is finished. Just to drive home the point that the Prime Minister and his cabinet have no freedom of choice in deciding and are bound to get out, let me quote from one more textbook, "How Are We Governed?", written by Professor John T. Saywell of York University and Professor John C. Ricker of the University of Toronto. We find the following statement on page 53:
These ministers, or the cabinet as they are collectively called, are in turn responsible to the House of Commons and can hold office as advisers to the crown only as long as they are supported by the elected house.
If they are defeated in an election or in the House of Commons, they must resign.
Again, we find the following statement on page 68:
The house can indicate its displeasure by defeating a government measure or simply by passing a motion of lack of confidence in the ministry. In such cases, the Prime Minister has no alternative but to hand in his resignation to the Governor General or ask for dissolution.
In the light of this great breadth of authoritative opinion I cannot accept that this government has the right, after Monday evening, February 19, to bring in any business whatsoever or even to pretend to office. Their course is clear and they have no legal or constitutional choice but to resign or dissolve.
In the past few days one government apologist after another has come forward to plead that what happened on the floor of the house on Monday evening was all a terrible mistake, an unfortunate accident, a minor setback, an unimportant snag that had no real constitutional implications and carried with it no compulsion upon the government to act. What happened on that eventful evening? What are the facts as recorded in Hansard? The bare fact is that the government was defeated on a major money bill by the combined efforts of all opposition parties.
I heard the Prime Minister on television on Tuesday evening trying to explain the comparative unimportance of that vote, and I will

not go now into the question of the accommodation accorded by our leader to the Prime Minister on his speedy return from Jamaica. This is another story which should be told at great length. The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that the bill had been passed through all stages up to third reading before being narrowly defeated on the final vote. His main point was that this was a freak accident which never should have happened but now that it had things could be set right again by the simple expedient of revoting.
Again I draw to your attention, sir, the wording of that motion which you allowed to be placed on the order paper contrary to rule 35. The Prime Minister felt that the issue was a minor one, that the question of confidence in the government was not really involved, or if it was involved it was not fairly tested and, after all, why should we go to the bother of an election over a trifle such as a vote against the government? Let us consider the amount of money which such an election would cost the country. I have heard figures from $13 million to $30 million mentioned. Very few people in Canada today know the amount of money that the government is spending needlessly every hour, which could be spent on another election. I say it is our duty as members of the House of Commons to stop this unnecessary expenditure of money.
If the Prime Minister and his fellow apologists for the government really believe what they are saying and are not simply indulging in cynical manipulations of facts in order to enjoy the fruits of office, then they show an ignorance of the underlying and basic theory of parliamentary government, namely, that a government can continue to govern only as long as it retains the confidence of the people who gave it the power to govern in the first place. As I said before, the people are represented by members elected to the House of Commons. When a majority of these members vote against the government it seems obvious that confidence in the government has been lost. I believe that the ordinary man on the street believes in this principle, Mr. Speaker. This simple fact should be obvious even to the many members on the government side whose sympathies are with another system of government. However, I will not go into that at the moment.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Leaving aside for the moment the question of confidence in the government, the bare and inescapable fact remains that one of the principal measures of the government's legislative
February 27, 19S8
program is dead unless it can be reintroduced by some means unknown to me, by trickery or other unknown means which contravene rule 35. This is what I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, as the presiding officer of this body at the present time.
The importance of this measure can be judged from the fact that it was designed to heap new taxation on the Canadian people to the tune of $200 million or more in the next year and a half. According to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) when he introduced the new tax bite on November 30 last year, he expected a return of $25 million this year and $185 million in the year 1968-69. The word "peanuts" has been used in this house on various occasions. This amount may be peanuts to the Prime Minister and his free-spending colleagues, but it is a tremendous amount of money to the ordinary Canadians who would have had to pay it. We on this side of the house say it is not necessary for the government to collect this money from the people. They should cut down their spending as they have been advised to do time and time again by the opposition parties.
In the light of the increased spending outlined in the estimates now before us I wonder how the government can dismiss such a large slice of revenue so lightly? Only the great urge to retain office could explain their treatment of the defeat of the Income Tax Act amendments as a matter of minor concern, as they are apparently doing. In so far as the Prime Minister's bland explanation that the bill sailed through all stages up to third reading and only inadvertently came to grief, I suggest he should refer to Hansard to see what really happened. I realize that he was away on urgent national business and so was unlikely to know about these things at first hand.
What happened was that the tax bill was very nearly defeated while in committee only a few hours before it was defeated on third reading. There was some question about another vote on that day, but I should like to remind the house that this measure was the lynchpin of the government's program. We were told that this bill must be disposed of before the house could get an opportunity to consider other vital financial measures such as the estimates for the current fiscal year.
It is interesting to recall also that this very important matter was set down for consideration on various days last week but had to be put aside because the Minister of Finance, its sponsor, was unavoidably absent from the house on tremendously important national 27053-443
Motion Respecting House Vote business. The newspapers reported that this tremendously important national business involved making speeches to assorted party audiences across the country. However, I will not argue the merits of the importance given to this bill. After all, it may well be it was as important to the nation as the receiving of an honorary degree from the University of the West Indies. In short, Mr. Speaker, no one can doubt the vital importance of this bill or that it was fairly turned down and the government rejected by a vote of this house.
The importance of the impact of this measure upon the taxpayers and the economy of the country is made obvious by the definitions to be found among constitutional and parliamentary authorities as well as the status accorded it by the government itself. As to the fairness of the vote and its standing as an expression of the house, I simply remind Your Honour that it was a formal, recorded vote of members, not in committee but on third reading. Surely the only gauge of the merit of a measure must be the result of votes cast by those present on any given sitting day.
There is no important function of government or of parliament than that concerning the raising and expenditure of money. The whole history of the evolution of our system of parliamentary democracy is one of the concern of parliament for the taxpayers' money. If this government has forgotten that they have forgotten why they are here.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something about the deliberate attempt by the Prime Minister to couple his downgrading of this defunct bill with a gross distortion of the motives and actions of the opposition. If it had not been so vicious it would have been amusing. The Prime Minister implied, and he is an old hand at innuendo and a stranger to frankness, that the whole thing had been cooked up to embarrass the great Liberal party on the eve of its leadership convention. He went a little further than that with a statement that attempted to wring virtue from a case not in the least parallel. He said the Liberals had been gentlemanly and sporting last year when the Conservatives held their leadership convention. The Liberals had not interfered or tried to prevent it. The answer to that sanctimonious smear is simple. The Conservatives did not form the government at the time and parliament was in recess, not engaged on matters crucial to the national life of this country.

February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
The Prime Minister's party forms the government. It and it alone controls the comings and goings of parliament and determines what matters of national business are urgent. As the leader of the country and of his party the Prime Minister knew all this quite well when he chose to announce a leisurely program for his retirement, thus throwing the gates wide open to the parliamentary chaos that has followed. The Prime Minister has often drawn attention to the skill and knowledge required to steer a minority government through several years of stormy parliamentary voyaging. Being in possession of all this skill and knowledge he must surely have been perceptive enough to have seen the reefs ahead in the narrow and dangerous political waters into which he steered his ship when he decided to stage his farewell performance. The decision to go through the process of selecting his successor was made during a period when parliament was sitting and seized with critical national business. Having set the stage and written the script, can he now blame the players?
I do not believe there is a member in this house, Mr. Speaker, who would willingly try to hamper the government party in its selection of a new leader. I know of no one, certainly no one in my party, who wishes to embarrass the government party in this regard. We realize that it is a necessary and important event in the life of a political party. We might even agree that it has some importance to the nation as a whole. But surely no one in his senses, even one as far gone in greed and arrogance as members of the cabinet, would hold that the Liberal party's leadership convention is to be placed above the well-being of Canadians and the business of the nation. The Prime Minister has the ultimate responsibility for ordering the business of the nation and for ordering the affairs of his party. If the two conflict or if one is allowed to overshadow and endanger the other, then the responsibility for that also rests squarely upon his shoulders. I hope we shall hear no more of this shallow and unworthy excuse for legitimate opposition action in this house.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me direct a sincere and honest plea to the government to think first of Canada and of parliament, to place them above their greedy desire for what, under the most favourable estimate, can only be a few weeks or months of barren and anaemic power. Perhaps this will be a

vain plea, one that falls upon ears tightly stoppered against reason and decency. If this is so, and I am afraid it is, then let me direct my plea to the ordinary members of the house and urge them to act to preserve parliamentary government and advance the best interests of the country. It was the British House of Commons that many years ago effectively killed the myth of the divine right of kings to rule. Let this House of Commons kill once and for all time the myth of the divine right of the Liberal party to rule Canada.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, when great principles are at stake there is loyalty to one's party, but there is such a thing as loyalty to principles as one sees it. It came to me as a profound shock to see what is happening in this chamber. I will not mention by name those who decided that what was being done was not in their opinion for the good of the nation. What happened demonstrates what parliament is for. We are joined together in unity in our parties, but when a party loses its idealistic concepts it is time for others on the other side of the house to take a stand.
They are great parliamentarians, those hon. members sitting on the government side. I will not name any of them because that might be regarded as a designation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I must admit that the dean of the house comes within that classification. One of the greatest things that happened to him was what prevented his being here for the mess the other night. Fate often
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote puts its hands on those it would anoint, to give a quotation from Horace.
What a night that was. Never have I seen so many humbled so low as the government and its supporters were humbled that day. And now we are told that all is well, that everything has been saved, that a committee has been formed and that they have arrived at a plan to circumvent, degrade and undermine the basic principles of parliament. I do not know who the members are but according to the press one of them is the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: He bought his striped trousers two years ago. He was over here a while ago and he is moving back in this general direction.
It is said that everything has been arranged. I will not deal with what the Prime Minister is alleged to have said, since he is not here, but last night there was an article by the Canadian Press setting out in detail the Prime Minister's tremendous contribution. I refer to that eulogistic statement: "He got back; the government ceased by degrees to be losing; he arranged everything and he lined them all up."
Well, sir, what a perversion has been produced in this resolution:
That this house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
Well then, why do we have the bells ringing? Why do we call a vote at any time? I will not quote the authorities again. They have been referred to time and again. I emphasize that no amount of evasion, casuistry, circumlocution or downright deception can get away from the following words. I quote from page 461 of "Cabinet Government" by Jennings, that exemplar of the principles of parliamentary government quoted by the Prime Minister:
Four factors really determine the attitude of a government to a parliamentary defeat. The first is its loss of prestige.
This government had nothing to worry about on that score. The next point is this, and I am not adding any words of my own:
A weak government is a bad government.
This is a weak government, and it knows it. It is gluttonously hanging on to power because it knows how bad it is. It has invent-

ed this spurious attempt at parliamentary genius and in doing so it has followed in the footsteps of the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. In 1940 he called parliament with the promise of another session. Parliament met at 2.30 p.m. and at four o'clock he said, "You are not here any more; I have dissolved parliament." He got away with it. In 1926 there was the notorious Byng-King incident, and the Liberal party got away with it. It did not get away with it in 1956 though when it trampled on parliament and desecrated every sacred principle of this institution. The government thought the people would forget. I continue reading:
Defeat is a sign of weakness which can be overcome only by resignation or dissolution.
There Jennings knew not whereof he spoke. That little matter can be overcome if you have Creditiste allies who believe in this little aphorism:
A marciful providence fashioned us holler
O' purpose that we might our principles swaller.
I continue reading;
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The second is the strength of its own cohesion.
Huh. If what has been said by the candidates be cohesion, then give us separation.
The third is the nature of the issue on which it has been defeated. It is ill-advised to risk a dissolution on a matter which can be made a point of attack on political platforms unless it feels it has a good defence with a wide popular appeal.
I had not intended to read that. How frightened you are.
The fourth is the importance of the proposal or matter on which it was defeated. A defeat on an important part of the budget, as in 1852 and 1885, is obviously too important to be passed over.
Well, that is how the party opposite was defeated. Canadians have been asking for action. We are told now that Canada is in a frightful financial position. This is the conclusion the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has come to. Where are all the glorious descriptions of the past two years when we were assured that all was well, that everything was perfect? Today a terribly serious financial condition faces us. It has to be met. The people ask for action. They ask for relief from the highest taxation this nation has ever experienced. What relief is promised? Well, we are told: If this motion goes through the 5 per cent surtax will have gone by the board, but then we intend to plaster on an additional income tax. Mr. Speaker, those who vote for
February 27, 1968

this motion will be voting for the increase which is coming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Canadians are facing the highest cost of living in their history and the highest rate of inflation. Prices continue to climb. But the government is not concerned about these things. What they are concerned about is preserving their gluttonous desire for power.
I say to the government: If you get away with this you have virtually made sure that if you choose to stay in for the full five years you can do so, no matter what the people think; all you have to do is get defeated and then say the next day, "This is an awful thing; just when we were ready to attack these big problems we were interrupted."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: They sit over there trying to blame somebody now. I saw the Minister of Finance and the leader of the house sitting opposite. The house leader knew what was going on. At least, if his eyes gave any indication he was fearful. But the Minister of Finance took the attitude: Let's get going; let's get this vote over on a Monday night.
I give the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) an opportunity to deny that he did not try to prevent that vote. But the Minister of Finance had an appointment somewhere-where, I don't know; where, I don't care-and when he has an appointment, what should hold a vote back?
The vote was called and hon. members over there ran in pell-mell. Now they say: "We were caught; we were trapped; we were innocent lambs who walked into a trap. What a preposterous defence. They created the trap themselves. People ask for bread at reasonable prices together with all their other normal requirements and the government gives them a 5 per cent surtax which rests on the average person, since the limitation is $600. Farmers' markets are falling off, farm prices are relatively down, unemployment is mounting. But just as in 1957, when we warned the government for months in advance, no action has been taken. Then at a time like this members opposite mouth decayed platitudes about their belief in the supremacy of parliament. You do not like this institution or you would not permit this crime against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion Respecting House Vote


John George Diefenbaker: There you sit in all your
greatness, knowing that whatever the feelings of the people of Canada may be you are there. I do not like to use a commonplace expression, but the amount of wailing that has gone on since your defeat indicates that crybabies still exist. Members over there say: Give us another chance; we were taken unaware; we wanted the vote, but don't blame us. Mr. Speaker, in these days of computers even ministers of finance do not need to be able to count.
The government whip is a very hard-working whip. I have told him that personally and I say it publicly. But on his small shoulders condemnation is now being heaped because he dared to carry out the wishes of the Minister of Finance. That is hardly what one might call cricket. The government wants a second chance. To do what? To bring in a new bill to impose higher taxation. They never did cut expenditure as they should have done. I should be fair to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). I have a personal admiration for him and always did have. However, I feel that when he and the other ministers went to sleep on that increase in the postage last fall it was the first time in history that the people have been saved from taxation as a result of the dormant condition of a government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: What does the government intend to do? While all these problems face the nation they spend their time undermining our monarchy. They have chiselled away, removing one vestige after another. I do not blame the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) for laughing, because he thinks all the Liberals are with him now. They had a vote in the city of Montreal at the Liberal meeting there and they came out in favour of abolition. It is the right of any political party to do as it will, but is that the viewpoint of the government? One of those who voted for its abolition was the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier), Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. And what about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau)? I am sorry he is not here; of course he has other things to do. After all, is not a time like this when conditions are what they are, the proper time to bring in legislation regarding those things that up to the present time have been considered as wrongs against the state? What did the Minister of Justice say? He was asked why he did not vote and he said, "Well, I did not think it was important
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote enough. I am not going to do anything to oppose the trend." Are these to be some of the things that this government has in mind?
For the last several years Young Liberal Associations and university Liberal organizations have been bringing out resolutions to abolish the monarchy, and there has never been one word of condemnation or disagreement from the Prime Minister or any of the ministers of the crown. That is the kind of thing they devote themselves to despite the economic conditions that challenge this country and everything about it.
At a time when we are trying to bring unity to our country they come out with a new postage stamp. During the first world war I remember the great opposition of Henri Bourassa. He did everything he could to oppose, but now he is going to have his head on a postage stamp. Are you going to be fair and put Camilien Houde on the next one? What manner of political nonsense is this government engaged in, with issues facing this country the like of which we have not faced before? But they have nothing to worry about. They have had assistance from outside our country. They did not get it from Washington this time but they did get it from New York. In passing I want to refer to the degree to which the New York Times waltzed into action, if I might use that expression. It carried an editorial headed "Overdone Joke", and I quote:
It was good political fun for opposition forces to seize an unexpected opportunity to defeat the Canadian government in the House of Commons, but it would be irresponsible to carry the joke any further.
Who wrote that? Then in the last paragraph they said:
With the help of members from minor parties, Mr. Pearson should get it-
Meaning a vote of confidence.
Canada will be better off if he does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad you have aid from abroad. You cannot find many editorials in Canada that say that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I should also refer to a news item in the New York Times, written from this building. No wonder the New York Times editorial department went astray. The news item included the following:
The Liberals were defeated suddenly when, in Mr. Pearson's absence, they were outmanoeuvred


by opposition forces, who called an immediate vote on the tax bill. The bill, which has been controversial, would put a 5 per cent surcharge on personal income taxes and add 10 per cent to taxes on liquor and tobacco.
The house had all but completed its debate and the Liberals had weathered two previous tests on the bill. After these the final, or third reading, vote might have been considered a formality.
The only excuse one can give for the writer of that article is that he has not got that regard for the truth which he should have or, if he has, he does not understand the British parliamentary system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Now I come to the Creditistes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no desire whatever even to express the expectation of a hope that any argument will change them because, after all, was it not the leader of that party who made a statement the other day that he was going to stand firm and that this government should resign? The words he used outside the house were:
If we believe in Canada, that in a democracy, parliament is the real sovereign (power) of the country, in the present circumstances we can only say that the government has been beaten by a parliamentary majority and indeed should turn in its resignation.
That was the view that the hon. gentleman put out across this country. It is not for me to endeavour to enter into hypotheses as to the circumstances that made possible such a tremendous change in his attitude, but again I refer to the couplet:
A marciful providence fashioned us holler
O' purpose that we might our principles swaller.
What happened after his clarion declaration? No one knows.


An hon. Member:: He got some external aid from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: No one knows. It is not for me to enter into any theoretical analyses, but I wonder. I do not suppose that in this house today one is denied the right to wonder. I remember so well what happened in the month of April, 1963, when a few days after that election suddenly six Creditistes sat down together and penned a message to the Governor General saying they were going to support the Liberals, and with that, of course, I advised His Excellency to call on another government.
February 27, 19S8

Who was in on that? I don't know, but a former member of this house had views on the subject and he belonged to that party. John C. Doyle is a name to conjure with. He was around in 1963. He is still around in 1968 although he cannot cross the line into the United States because he will end up in the coop for three years if he does. But he is still a power politically. I would like to know whether he had any interest in this matter. It is a question that must occur in the thoughts of Canadians.
Where Doyle is, there is political fixing. He does pretty well too with this government. He owes millions and millions of dollars. The rest of us cannot postpone payment but he fiddles about, he monkeys. After all, he only owes millions. The little fellow across Canada who owes a few dollars gets letters of strong condemnation. I wonder whether he might be of assistance, whether he might give us some information about those six who co-operated in 1963, only one of whom is now in the house. I would be very glad to hear from the members of that party what, if anything, other than the natural desire to be in Ottawa to view the beauties of the capital city, would have brought him hither within the last few days, if my information be correct? It may be only a coincidence but when you have a similar coincidence in 1963 then the question naturally arises, has there been any change of viewpoint in a period of four years? Sir, all I have done is ask a simple question: What did Doyle do. Who spoke with the members of the Creditiste party?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Put up or shut up.


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the hon. gentleman is concerned may I say that I am reminded of the couplet:
As the cuckoo is in June Heard but not regarded.
Now, sir, I shall conclude. My time is almost up. You may win the mathematical vote but the old, old jingle still rings true: Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall; all Caouette's horses and all Caouette's men couldn't put Humpty-Dumpty together again. You know it; you sit over there and you are already counting to the end of your term because you know you cannot trample on the sacred rights of parliament. You cannot possibly do that for which Charles I lost his head. We do not want that to happen to you, but certainly the punishment was merited in his case.
Motion Respecting House Vote
You have forgotten the people. You have forgotten the meaning of the word "responsibility" and you have forgotten parliament. You are trying to defend a position by unwarranted and undignified means. If this motion is voted on favourably that mace, sir, is a bauble. In the mace is contained all the pure heritage of parliament. I hold with the words of Oliver Cromwell when he came into the British house, which had been sitting forever and illegally, and said:
I command ye, therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place;... Go, get out, make haste, begone! So take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The former leader of the opposition has been accusing us, he has been making insinuations I call dishonest regarding the Ralliement Creditiste I represent in the house. He has been referring to the 'Six" affair in 1963, in which myself and this party were not involved.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: The former leader of the opposition is suggesting that I might have been meeting Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, those who are making such insinuations, and the former leader of the opposition has the habit of doing this, are acting in a dishonest way. There was no meeting-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly state his question of privilege?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is this: I want to protest for myself and the group I represent against the accusations the former leader of the opposition brought against my group. Let me say this, on the question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Réal Caouette: -if the former leader of the opposition wants to bring accusations, he should bring them before the committee on privileges and elections; he should act honestly and not in a cowardly way as he did this afternoon in the House of Commons.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I should like to state very clearly at the outset that I believe the standing
7038	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote orders which, for eight days now, have not allowed us to solve a very simple matter, are obsolete and should be changed as soon as possible. For eight days now, the country and the house wonder whether or not the government has the confidence of the house.
This, of course, is not the time-


Mr. Nugent:: You have no doubt about whether the government has the confidence of the people.


Mr. Trudeau:: The question of whether our standing orders which provide an eight-day debate on a parliamentary question, when we live in a century and in an age where decisions must be taken much more rapidly, not only on behalf of the nation but also on behalf of justice-


Mr. Lambert:: You are distorting the
question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -an answer should be found to that question. In short, the question is quite simple. We have to know, Mr. Speaker, if the government should continue to govern or should call an election.
It is a question to which we have the right to get an answer. It is especially a question to which the Canadian people have a right to get an answer.
Two opinions prevail. It is the opinion of the opposition that, last Monday, we lost the confidence of the house. It is our opinion that we did not lose it.
The Leader of the Opposition has quoted authorities. He referred in particular to the 1963 election where the question of confidence had been clearly put, and where the word confidence appeared in the motion introduced at that time and in the proposed amendments. He also quoted from the Canada Year Book.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We have quoted certain authorities to the contrary, not the l'Almanach Beauchemin, but prominent parliamentary authorities.
Whether or not the government is justified, whether or not the opposition is justified to take that position, such is the matter before us and it is quite simple. Now, who must answer that question? Must we seek an answer in the standing orders, the tradition or the constitution?


An hon. Member:: The people of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is it in the constitution of the country? Certainly not.

DEBATES	February 27, 1988
It has already been established that the constitution only mentions that an election must be held every five years. We are well within that limit.
Is it you, Mr. Speaker, who must decide that quite simple question? The answer, of course, is no. The Speaker is only asked to be the spokesman of the house. When the house speaks out clearly in compliance with standing orders, the Speaker must act as its interpreter. When the rules are challenged, the Speaker must settle the matter. Therefore, it is surely and obviously not up to the Speaker to decide whether or not the government has the confidence of the house, because it would empower him to call an election or not to do so. It is clear, therefore, that the house should not turn to you, Mr. Speaker.
Is it the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who should answer that question? If the Leader of the Opposition were called upon to answer it, we would certainly be the first to call this a dictatorship. It is not up to a particular man, convinced of the soundness of his opinion, to express the will of the house.
Cromwell has been quoted. That is a rather suspect authority, since he is a man who dissolved parliament several times and finally established a dictatorship. Those are not words which should be put in the mouth of a parliamentarian.
In this respect, I am surprised that the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) should have had so little imagination that he had to repeat the same quotation twice. It seems to me that parliamentary history is rich enough to allow one not to repeat these cliches, particularly when their author is a dictator.
Therefore, it is not up to the Leader of the Opposition nor up to the Prime Minister to answer this question, for this would give them the authority of a dictator. In fact, they would then be able to overrule the house. This would be tantamount to holding parliament in contempt. To force a man to answer this very simple question is, in fact, to put him in a dictatorial position.
I heard the hon. member of Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) say that it is the people. That is exactly what we should ask ourselves. Each time the government loses a vote, should we go to the electorate? That is precisely what some hon. members claim. I tell you that if it were the logic of the rules, if it were in the spirit of the constitution, we would have to call elections all the time and, on the other
February 27, 1968

hand, the people would be forbidden to elect minority or coalition governments because, in the final analysis, that is the interpretation we would have to give to the rules. The rules must be logical, must make sense. They must look for efficiency.
We find in the past innumerable examples of governments, in general they were minority or coalition governments, sometimes unstable governments, which lost votes in the house. I merely want to recall three examples among the best known.
During the first four sessions of the Canadian parliament, from 1867 to 1871, the government was beaten nine times on votes in the house, sometimes on supply motions or monetary matters. If they had been forced to resign, as the opposition claims, there would have been nine elections in four years.
There is also another example. From 1834 to 1840, in England, the government was defeated 58 times in the House of Commons and 49 times in the House of Lords, so that in four years, there would have been about a hundred elections.


An hon. Member:: Silly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, this is not silly, because one has to enter into the spirit of parliamentarism. If the people elect a minority government, as they decided to do in the last five years in Canada, we must interpret legislation so that it makes sense.
On the other hand, it would be senseless to hold dozens of elections in a few months, because here also, this happened in England from January 1924 to August 1924 when ten votes were lost in the House of Commons. Again, that would have meant ten elections in so many months.
I give these examples only to draw the following conclusion: We are here to respect the will of the people, to interpret the general will. If the people elect to the House of Commons members to govern the country, the people do so through a free vote, according to its knowledge. If, instead of electing a majority government, it elects a minority government, well, the people take this chance, and asks the minority government to govern the best it can, and not call elections as soon as it finds that it is in a minority position.
On the other hand, it is astonishing to see how few votes our minority government has lost in five years and how it has succeeded in passing innumerable bills.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Motion Respecting House Vote


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What do you mean, no? It is true that the government has been in power for five years. It lost the vote on Monday night and what I find astonishing is that all of a sudden, on Monday night, the government is said by some to have lost the confidence of the house. This goes against the logic of the rules of the house.
Mr. Speaker, when there is a difference of opinion on a basic matter-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister accept a question? Would he deny that the Prime Minister has the right, when the government is defeated, to advise His Excellency either to call an election or call on someone else, who the Prime Minister advises would likely enjoy the confidence of parliament, to form a government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not readily see how the question is related to what I was saying, but the answer is no. I do not deny that. Of course, the government was defeated in the house, but has it lost the confidence of the house? Is it thereby forced to resign, to dissolve parliament?
My argument is clear: If the house is denied the right to express its views on a basic difference between the opposition and the government; if, when the question involved is as simple as the one put last Monday evening, do we or do we not have the confidence of the house, the house is deprived of the right to have its say, the whole parliamentary system is being negated. Because this is the law of parliament: When the government and the opposition disagree, as happens day in day out, week in week out, every time a piece of legislation is being considered, after the discussion, the house is called upon to decide on the issue. Such is the parliamentary system, Mr. Speaker.
It is not direct democracy, which is to go to the country to settle every disagreement; it is not to dissolve parliament ten times in six months. Then, indeed, this would be direct democracy.
Every time we disagree-and God knows we often do-we would have to go to the people to find out what they think? Why bother then having a parliamentary democracy, a so-called representative democracy? We are here to represent the people; as we often disagree, Mr. Speaker, we must solve those
7040	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote disagreements without having a general election each time. A general election is an instrument given to the government to demonstrate that it has control over and the confidence of the houses. Prorogation of parliament, as everyone knows, is an instrument through which the government exercises its authority over the houses. Now, we are doing the opposite: We are not threatening the house with dissolution. We say to the house: We are not going, over your head, to the people, to know what they think-


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to conclude my peroration, after which I shall answer questions.
We are not going to the people, over the heads of the parliamentarians, to know what the people think. We are asking the parliamentarians what they think. That is the question of confidence we put last Monday, the question now before the house. That is the question on the order paper, Mr. Speaker.
I am now prepared to hear the question of the hon. member.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Colin Cameron: My question is this, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us why in the circumstances he has outlined so eloquently the government did not present to this house a simple motion of confidence? What is the explanation for tying it in with the vote last Monday night?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, I can answer that question very easily, Mr. Speaker.
If we had taken the stand to introduce a simple vote of confidence before the house, if we had put on the order paper: This house has confidence in the government, no doubt several members would have refused to vote yea.


Malcolm MacInnis: Collusion is the answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know why they are so surprised. We admitted it right from the beginning.

DEBATES	February 27, 1968
Some hon. members have spoken to that effect and I repeat their assertions. They told us that their vote last Monday night was not a non-confidence vote. They said that what they wanted to do that evening was simply to defeat that legislation.
And, on that subject, I refer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who stated as can be found on page 132 of the Debates of January 31, 1966, that the opposition must have the right to vote against bills to state its opposition to bills or its disagreement with the government, without necessarily expressing a lack of confidence in the government.
Mr. Speaker, I have here the quotation and it might be useful to read it:

-we have the right to vote on issues of substance separate from the question of an election ... we can vote on the other matter-
The matter of confidence.
-any time the government wishes.
This is exactly what is happening. We are saying that on that Monday certain members of the opposition voted against the bill because they wanted to defeat the bill. What the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says is that if we ask the house to vote on the matter of confidence they will do so but that certainly they do not wish to defeat the government every time they defeat a bill. This is exactly the argument which was put forward, and it is a sensible argument.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the minister a question? Was I not asking for that position to be stated before the vote was taken, not after the vote had been taken and the government had lost?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is not the case. These are the rules of parliament. They have been quoted at length by the hon. member and they are quite clear. The difference between the argument put forward by the hon. member and my own position is that the hon. member wishes to be on the side of those who decide if the defeat of a specific bill is the defeat of the government. That is the difference. We say we will decide if the defeat of a specific bill is the defeat of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
February 27, 1968


Mr. Hees:: We want to decide.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: The government is on the road to dictatorship.


Colin Cameron: Will the minister permit a question?


Mr. Howard:: You have embarrassed him enough already.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when people yell like animals, one cannot hear very well the questions asked. If somebody wants to ask me questions, I will answer them, but to bawl like a herd will not do very much for the decision.
The questions are not quite pertinent, if you want-


Some hon. Members:: Just try it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would like to carry on my little speech, and then if we have time, I shall be very pleased to answer questions.
I shall try to bring my demonstration to an end. When we refuse the house authority to settle basic differences of opinion which have arisen between the two main parties, we are denying parliamentarism, because this is the basic principle of parliamentarism, Mr. Speaker.
I am not saying that we are right, neither am I saying that you are wrong. I am simply saying that a difference of opinion has arisen between us, but that we cannot go to the people of Canada each and every time this happens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am now sufficiently acquainted with the mentality of the house to know that, should we have said last Monday that this party had lost the confidence of the house and therefore asked for a general election, we would have heard strong protests from the opposition benches. They would have said: So, this government is plunging the country into an election which the people do not want at this time, or: So, this government is calling 27053-444J
Motion Respecting House Vote an election because it has been defeated on a mere technical matter. They would have demonstrated that the defeat of Monday night, last week, was purely on a technical matter.
I will not quote again at great length all the authorities. I will quote them nevertheless as a reminder, since the hon. members do not seem to recall them.
Beauchesne says that when-

The question for the third reading may be negatived, but as previously stated such a vote is not fatal to the bill.

This was citation 418.
Bourinot, in its third edition, page 648, has this to say:

If a resolution adverse to the bill be resolved in the affirmative; or the motion, "that the bill be now read a second time" be simply negatived on a division-

That is what happened: it is on third reading that the vote was negatived.

-the measure will disappear from the order book, but it may be revived at any subsequent time, as the house has only decided that it should not then be read a second time, and the order previously made for the second reading remains good.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: It was third reading.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me continue reading from Bourinot:
The same practice obtains with respect to the bill, at any previous or succeeding stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now I should like to quote Erskine May, another great authority, page 571 of the seventeenth edition. The same thing is said whether you look at Bourinot, Beauchesne or Erskine May. It reads as follows:
If the question "That the bill be now read the third time" is negatived, such a vote is not necessarily fatal to the further progress of the bill. The more usual method of objection is therefore to move an amendment, putting off the third reading for three (six) months, or a "reasoned" amendment against the bill being now read the third time. The carrying of the former amendment is tantamount to the rejection of the bill, while, in the event of a "reasoned" amendment being accepted, it is unlikely that any further progress would be made with the bill.
I do not have the Canada Year Book here but, as I say, this is a technical matter. If we
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote had dissolved the house and had called a general election there would have been incredible outcries that the government was beaten on a technicality and was pushing the country into a general election.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: It is not a technicality.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The point I am making now, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not trying, as we could under the rules, to revive the bill and put it back on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Try it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members say, "Try it". It is easy to defy us because we say we would not do so.

I will even go further, and I will say that it is not only the government's intention not to reintroduce this legislation, but that it is firmly determined to credit the taxpayers with the money they have paid under the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government recognizes that it is the will of this house not to collect taxes that way. Therefore, it is saying clearly and plainly to the taxpayers: The money you paid legally under this legislation, that money will be credited to you. It cannot be clearer than that.


Mr. Harkness:: If you admit that this is the case, why did you call your defeat a technicality, as you did a few minutes ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to explain just now is that it is not our intention to bring that bill back. That is the power of choice. The government, as long as it is the government, has the power of choice as to the way it governs-


Mr. Coales:: Answer the question. [Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am answering the question. We are masters of the house in the sense that we have to conduct the affairs of government. That is what it means to assume the power. We are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
I Mr. Trudeau.]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. members do not agree. Mr. Speaker, for eight days, we have been begging them to show their disagreement by a non-confidence vote.
We find it ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, that for eight days, the opposition which claims that we do not have the confidence of the house, refuses to express its non-confidence. We say: Give us the chance to end the debate; let us try and see whether or not we have this confidence. If you vote against the government, without any hesitation, we will resign.
But that, once again, is a very simple question, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Your time has expired. [Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: May I ask the question now, please? The question is simple.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister still has the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I have time left I will take all the questions. However, I have been challenged by many hon. members who have said: Let the Minister of Justice, with his great wisdom, speak on this question. There has been a great deal of irony about what I think. Well, listen to what I think.

Mr. Speaker, the argument I want to put forward is that the people have a right to know whether or not the government has the confidence of the house. The people have a right to know whether or not this government controls the business of the nation, and since the people have a right to know, we on our part have an obligation to have the matter settled by the house. We have a moral obligation to ask this question, in order that the people may know what is what.
I am surprised at what this new theologian is saying: there was one in the past who was More, and now we have saint Thomas Douglas.
According to him, the moral obligation of placing this matter before the house does not exist. He says that we have a political obligation, a constitutional duty to do, but no moral right.
February 27, 1968



If there is reason to doubt that the house really wished to defeat the government-we may be wrong and this is what we have to decide-and render it powerless to conduct the nation's business, then I suggest the government has not only the constitutional right but the constitutional duty to have the house express its will in a clear and unequivocal way. The leader of the New Democratic party recognized the constitutional right of the government to ask the house for a vote of confidence last Wednesday. However, he said the government had no moral right to ask the house for a vote of confidence. I must take issue with that because I am unable to disassociate political morality from political duty. I think it is the duty of the government, and it has a duty to the people, to have this question clarified. This is what we are doing and this is what we are asking the house for now, to speak quite clearly on this issue. We hope that will be done very soon.

Many other authorities have given their opinion on this subject, Mr. Speaker. Every time there is a disagreement between the opposition and the government, the house is called upon to settle the matter, and that is what we are asking it to do as quickly as possible, because the arguments being repeated ad nauseam are not all very new.
I think all the members in this house have their opinion as to whether the government should consider the vote which took place on Monday evening as a defeat of the government or a defeat of a piece of legislation. However, I think their mind is made up. This is not the time to repeat endless arguments, but to make a decision.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I think that those who are refusing the dialogue, those who refuse to take part in the debate and who do not want it to be settled by a vote are suspect. They are people who do not accept a rational and controlled settlement of a question on which we are divided, and that must be a fundamental rule in any parliament.
The basic rule when there is disagreement between the opposition and the government is that the matter must be settled in a rational and controlled way.
This is what we attempted to do when we put the motion now under discussion. I think that I can summarize that in few words.
Motion Respecting House Vote fEnglish]
It is not for the opposition to dictate to the government, nor is it right that the government should dictate to the opposition. The issue is placed before the House of Commons and the house itself decides the question either for or against the government. If all parties or members of the house deny the right of the house to decide the point in issue they are really attacking or destroying the fundamental framework within which the institution must necessarily operate. The debate, Mr. Speaker, is intended not only for the enlightenment and persuasion of members of the house but for the information of the public at large. The person who refuses to debate and have a matter settled by vote demonstrates in the end that he does not have confidence in the House of Commons. Perhaps his case is so weak he knows it cannot be debated and he cannot accept a rational or controlled solution. But that, Mr. Speaker, is what the people of this country want and what they need. They want this debate to come to an end. They want the House of Commons to make up its mind whether or not it has confidence in the government. The way to decide this is by a vote, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona wishes to ask a question.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister said he would take questions. I wonder whether I understood him correctly that the government stand is there is no question of confidence inherent in an important government bill but that a question of confidence only arises when the government is defeated on such a bill?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I said that it is for the government to decide whether it shall consider a vote to be a vote of confidence or not.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Before or after the vote?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before or after the vote. If a government decides that such and such an issue, which may be a minor technicality-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am talking about an important money bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me answer the question. If the government states that a very minor technical issue is considered a vote of confidence-


An hon. Member:: Stupid.
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It may be stupid but it is the opinion of Dicey, it is the opinion of Jennings and it is the opinion of Todd. However, if hon. members want to continue the debate and I have more time, I can expand on this.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we should not try to bring some order to the debate. I notice a number of other hon. members want to ask questions. The minister has concluded his speech but hon. members might wish to proceed for a few more minutes to allow some questions.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the minister's statement and I should like to ask this question which bears upon this particular issue. I believe there are 16 items now on the order paper. For the guidance of members of the house would the minister indicate whether or not a vote on any one of those items, particularly on Bill No. C-195 to amend the Criminal Code, would be construed by the government to be a vote of confidence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think this question can be answered, Mr. Speaker, though not by me; I am not the government. However, I think it conceivable that the government could say that all bills on the order paper except this one or that one, or all bills without exception, will involve questions of confidence, that if the government is beaten on any one it will consider it a defeat. It could also say that if it was beaten on a mere technicality during debate on any bill it would go to the people.


An hon. Member:: But before the defeat, not after.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It could be both before and after.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the house did not agree with the interpretation that the government put on a bill it could always refuse to grant supply to the government. It could refuse to give the government money to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the house could permit the hon. member for Lapointe to ask one last question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister still has the floor. Is he prepared to answer a further question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question dealing with the income tax and the vote on Bill No. C-193.
Can he tell us, on behalf of the government-whatever the outcome of the vote of confidence-if the government considers that Monday night's vote is final and will not increase the income tax?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeated earlier what the Prime Minister had said previously, namely that the bill had been defeated, that we accepted that decision and would not bring it back before the house.
We even stated earlier that the government saw as a credit the payments made under that bill. The conclusion is therefore very simple.


Gilles Grégoire: May I put a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gilles Grégoire: Can the minister tell us whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Order, please. The ministers' time has expired. When I recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a moment ago I thought he was rising for the purpose of asking the minister a question. If that was not so I should like at this moment to see the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


Hon. Alvin Hamillon (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the house witnessed one of the greatest events in its history, namely, the speech of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). First of all I am going to deal with the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) and I will
February 27, 1968

do so in two simple statements. What we have heard this afternoon is a doctrine that has no place in a parliamentary system embodying belief in the responsibility of the executive to the elected representatives of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The doctrine we have heard today is nothing less than asking the house to adopt the congressional system followed in Washington.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the minister has enunciated a philosophy that would have done justice to Cromwell the dictator when the minister said, "We are the masters". I hope that all Liberal members who were sitting in the house this afternoon and watching this demonstration will have been given sufficient indication how to pick their new leader. If they pick the new Minister of Justice as their leader they will pick a real patrician. He knows who the peasants are.
The Minister of Justice has challenged us on three issues. He raised the question of the position of a minority government. He raised the question of the system of responsible government. He raised the question of what is and what is not a vital issue.
I intend to commence my remarks by stating flatly that there is not one single authority in the written word that holds that when a government is defeated on a money bill it has the right to take a vote of confidence. I am familiar with the precedents of 1867-73 established in Canada. Only one of those precedents related in any way to money and it was an item dealing with a customs bill. I am also aware of the precedents in the British house from 1846 to 1886, and never once in all the times that a British government was defeated on a money bill did it fail to go to the Queen. The budget debates of 1852 and 1855 make that clear beyond doubt.
This brings me, Mr. Speaker, to my own thoughts on the subject we are now debating. This government stands condemned before the people of Canada of betraying precedents that have been built up over 700 years and relate to the people and those who govern them. There is no stronger foundation in that structure than the principle that declares that the people have the right to control the money that is taken from them. This principle goes back to Magna Carta. It has been laid down in our parliamentry structure and has evolved over the centuries to the present day in the Canadian House of Commons. It is
Motion Respecting House Vote this doctrine that has restrained the pressure applied by those who want to seize power.
This does not mean that efforts have not been made during our constitutional history to take over control of the purse. In Canada we use the word "royalty" when we assess mining, oil or gas taxes, and it emanates from the period when the crown took away from parliament the right to control both incoming and outgoing revenue. Those kings, Mr. Speaker, paid a heavy price for tramping on the rights of the people. Likewise, in the days of Oliver Cromwell there was a period of dictatorship as opposed to parliamentary rule. We must never forget these things.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I well recall how in the early days of the war, in military camps all over the world, young men were asking, "Why are we fighting?" The government of Canada put out a book listing four reasons why we should fight to the death to make sure that Hitler's armies did not control the world. Read that book. It said that young men should fight because we have a system of government whose members are responsible to the people. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) stood in his place today and tried to shock this house and this country into a realization of what has happened here since last Monday. We have seen here a travesty of the rights of free men, a most shocking thing to happen under a government that calls itself Liberal. Never again will the word "Liberal" mean to Canadians what it has meant and never again will it be uttered with honour.
This matter resolves itself into two or three simple questions. As I said in opening, there is not a single written authority to say that where an important money bill has been defeated the Prime Minister has not gone to the country, to the Governor General or to the crown, as the case may be. There are hundreds of precedents to show that when a minor bill has been defeated a minority government has not always gone to the country. It is on those limited exceptions that the government rests its case.
Let us look at the precedents. One finds that, for the sake of stability, a minority government which is defeated on a minor bill does not always consider that defeat a matter of confidence because, as the Minister of Justice said, such governments would be going to the country every time there was a defeat. But, Mr. Speaker, the right to follow such a
7046	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote precedent must be claimed by the Prime Minister in advance. There are many examples of an English prime minister saying at the beginning of a session that certain items are minor and a vote against the government in regard to them will not be a vote of confidence, and other areas are staked out as major, and the vote in regard to them will be considered a vote of confidence.
I am addressing all those seats on the government side of the house.


An hon. Member:: They are empty now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I put it to individual members on the government side that their honour is at stake. Is this minority government going to claim the rights of a minority government after the fact of a defeat? I maintain that you have no right to sit there now that you have been defeated on a major bill. It was a tax bill and important to the government's budget. I ask, by what right, in pure logic and pure justice, can the government continue to sit with honour?
I shall now cite an authority higher than any that have been cited in this debate so far.
I cite the authority of a man who has done more to wreck this country, to wreck national unity and to wreck parliament than any single man in our history. I refer to the man who, basically, is the cause of this mess, a man who has no strength of will and who has destroyed his ministers right and left instead of taking the blame when anything goes wrong. I shall now quote the words of the man who holds the office of Prime Minister.
On April 23, 1963, just after the election, he appeared on national television, the media of medias where truth is evident in the face of a speaker. These are the Prime Minister's words when waiving his right to the protection that a minority government must sometimes seek:
My government is just short of a clear majority.
I do not complain about that. It is my resolve not to allow the lack of such a clear majority to influence the government in any way that will weaken its action for you. We will not be seeking to evade any issues, to avoid any votes in parliament. We will not be seeking any special deals. We will breech no trust, barter no principles.


An hon. Member:: Better listen, Trudeau.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These words are from the official communique of the broadcast script for April 23, 1963. If that newly elected Prime Minister had not been so cocky, so arrogant, so stupid, he could have asked the Canadian people to bear with him so that if he were

DEBATES	February 27, 1968
defeated on minor matters-that is one of the hazards of a minority government-he would not have to go to the country.
I have read the Prime Minister's statement on April 23, 1963. In it he outlined his minority government's position. But now he asks us to treat him as a minority government Prime Minister and to absolve him from his waiving of his rights. When he returned from Jamaica he was petulant and angry and he put on an awful display on television in blaming his whip and so on. In the house he blamed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and he waved his finger at the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for leading him astray in his thinking. He blamed everybody but himself. When that petulance was over he got the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) to stand up in the house and say, "But this was a minor, technical matter of a 5 per cent surtax." It was on top of last year's tax increase.
On top of that the Prime Minister says, "We are going to get this money somehow." The Minister of Finance also says, "We are going to get that money." Somebody went to the Creditistes and told them that if they voted confidence the tax would not be reimposed. I say to them: Whom are you going to believe? Are you going to believe what you have been told or what you have heard in this house? Are you going to believe what has been put out on television, radio and in the newspapers, that the Minister of Finance intends in some way to get that tax and a lot more from you? Any Creditiste and any other member who votes confidence in this government will not only lose his honour but will be voting for additional taxes as soon as this government can find a way of bringing them in. Never forget that.
It has been said that societies in the western world can only be ruled by precedents or by military might. This afternoon the Minister of Justice refused to accept precedents that say that defeat on major money bills brings down governments. Instead he gave us a snivelling little argument, which was pure sophistry, that the vote was a minor, technical matter involving third reading. There was nothing to it. If the Liberal party at its convention next April has the attitude of the Minister of Justice, God help Canada.
We live in a day when government is mixed up with business to a tremendous extent. Parliament must consider adopting modern practices. The hon. members for Parry Sound-Muskoka and Winnipeg North
February 27, 1968

Centre and others in this house have pondered how, with a minority government and even with a majority government, we can modernize the parliamentary institution, how we can maintain traditional freedoms but yet deal more rapidly with important business. In our corporate society surely new approaches can be adopted.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Surely there could be a tremendous improvement in the way in which we handle bills. Surely there could be staked out in our rules, written or unwritten, certain areas which concern the conscience or the religious beliefs of hon. members, and measures affecting them could be dealt with in the same way as the house dealt with the capital punishment bill two years ago, letting each man vote according to his conscience. This would not interfere with cabinet responsibility. Surely the Minister of Justice, who is bringing in amendments to the law dealing with such subjects close to his heart as abortion, the carrying of firearms and homosexuality, would be willing to have the house deal with them on the basis of individual conscience and religious belief. These are matters in connection with which we could make adjustments. But I cannot accept the statement that no matter how many times a bill is defeated the government may decide to call for a vote of confidence to see whether it will continue or not. This is a doctrine foreign to everything for which we stand.
My leader has said we must go to the country and let the people resolve this question. I recall the events of 1955 when the opposition was contesting the Emergency Powers Act under which the government was given unlimited power for an unlimited period of time. Eventually, under strong opposition pressure, the government sent Mr. C. D. Howe away on holiday and when that great tycoon had gone they changed the act so that they would have those powers for only three years instead of for an indefinite period.
The pipe line debate has been mentioned. When hon. members are considering how they will vote let them also keep in mind that in November, 1966 their government struck a blow at the foundations of parliament. On that occasion members of parliament believed that the way in which they could bring the government to heel was to talk on interim supply and force it to take action. It has always been traditional that every month or two months members of parliament have the

Motion Respecting House Vote chance to make the executive realize who is boss when it comes to money.
In November, 1966, members opposite, seeing the Conservative party engaged in a bloodletting operation in a hotel nearby, stood up and contemptuously announced: You can talk all you like on interim supply; we have stashed away so much money in accounts here and there that you really have no control over us. Yet they pretend they would not take advantage of a party at a time when it was obliged to take certain decisions. Nevertheless they struck a severe blow at parliament at a time when Her Majesty's loyal opposition was in turmoil and distress. They destroyed a great deal of the freedom of parliament on that occasion.
Today these same people are trying to tell us that a defeat in the house on a major money bill is only a minor and technical matter. Whoever makes such a statement can only be a man who sees everything in black and white, a man who sees everything as being either true or false, a man who does not want the protection of 700 years of evolution in our parliamentary institutions, a man who tells us: I see it this way; you see it that way; you must decide.
I suggest that those who are old enough to do so let their minds go back to the sounds we heard in the thirties emanating from Italy and Germany. I cannot speak Italian or German but I did not need to understand what those men were saying. They were saying: Decide. There were men in the western world who recommended compromise. But eventually we had to ask our young men to decide the issue, and the government had to put out a pamphlet explaining to them why they were away from home and asking them to fight on. Some people may not recall that in those early days of 1940 and 1941 things looked pretty bad, and when we ask men to fight a long way from home they have to believe in something. The only thing many of us could tell them was that here in Canada we had a system of government whereby the people controlled the executive. Those in our forces who served under United States generals were proud that we had a system superior to that of the Americans. Our system put the head of state above party considerations. Under our system the executive had to sit every day in the House of Commons to be questioned and criticized. Under our system the executive fell if it failed to command a majority on every government bill and money measure.
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
Many a young man lies buried abroad today because he believed that doctrine. It was not much to hold on to but it was better than having somebody else behind him with superior intelligence and superior force, telling him what to do. He was prepared to go along with the stupid inefficiency of democratic government as long as he had the right to mark an X once in a while on a ballot paper to get rid of a government he did not like. But he expects his representatives in parliament to stand up and fight for the principles upon which democracy is founded. When people count the house and tell us it is all a question of numbers I want them to think of all those poor dupes who were sent to the blood baths of 1916 and 1917 in Europe and of all those lads who were sent to so many parts of the world in 1939 to fight for those principles and who did not come back. As for those of us who did return, let me say we understand completely the significance of the statement made today by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I hope there is no one on either side of the house who fails to recognize what he was trying to tell us in his statement today. I, for one, am willing to debate this subject with all the limited intelligence I have.
I say the government has waived its right to be regarded as a minority government. It has rejected ideas advanced in this parliament for the reform of the institution and the widening of the areas in which the issue of confidence is not involved. Now it is hanging on to power, acting like a crybaby. I well remember the events of last Monday. On seeing those faces across the way my thoughts went back to February 5, 1963. At least when we went down we went down fighting and willing to go to the people. And our tiger at least had the courage to go to the Governor General and lay it on the line that he was resigning.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Now this rabbit government, this crybaby government says, "Give us a second chance." I can just imagine young Miss Nancy Greene, when she came tenth in the downhill, kicking herself all over the place and saying, "If I could only do it again I could win." She knew she could have won. Did she go to Mr. Brund-age and say, "I want a new trial"? No, she took it on the chin and tried harder in later events.
As I sat and watched those faces opposite the other night I suddenly got an answer to a question asked on television that has been
[Mr. Hamilton.)
bugging me for months. The question asked on television is, what is whiter than white? Now I know. It is a Liberal cabinet minister's face when he realizes he has lost a vote of confidence.
The other day in the house the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke very quietly, with all the quiet contempt that a man of his background and stature has for the type of things he has had to endure from the opposite side since he came into this house, and he simply posed this question:
Mr. Speaker, If any member on that front bench, including the Prime Minister, had been asked before that vote was taken whether or not it was a vote of confidence, every one of those hon. gentlemen would have said without any hesitation, "Certainly it is."
The case that the Minister of Justice made today was pure unadulterated sophistry mixed with a concept of mea non culpa. All I could think was that he should be running for the job of Pope, not prime minister, because a prime minister does not have to be infallible; he can make mistakes.
My goodness, Mr. Speaker, just read what the press has been saying in the last week about the significance of this precedent. From yesterday's Gazette I read part of an editorial:
This precedent could have various effects upon parliament's future. For one thing, it could induce a new carelessness in governments. Hitherto, the possibility of defeat in the house on a bill of great importance has always been an exceedingly serious matter. It has lent a concentration and meaning to the debates and to the votes taken in the house. This, in turn, has given the proceedings of the house that grave and disciplined character that they ought to have on all critical occasions.
All this, now, could be changed. It would no longer be vital if a government were defeated. It can always do the thing over again, in the same way that a movie director can cut a length of film and consign it to the studio floor and call back the actors for a retake.
The debates on a bill, the serious arguments advanced, the dramatic meaning of the final division of the house in the vote-all these things will take on far less significance.
In the quiet, restrained voice of the dear, sweet lady known as the Montreal Gazette we have the significance of what this precedent will mean-the house has no more purpose.
I want to raise a matter now which I have touched on before. I have suggested that the remarks of the Minister of Justice support a suspicion I have held for some time, that many people in Canada think that the purest form of freedom is found in the form of government adopted by our friendly neighbour to the south, the United States. I have seen this
February 27, 1968

view expressed so many times over the last 30 or 40 years in history books, articles and so on. They have a written bill of rights. It is all so precise. All I want to say is that when I heard the statement by the Minister of Justice today I thought, here it is coming out in the pure, unadulterated form.
The difference between our system of government and theirs is very well known. They separate the powers. They separate the executive from the legislature and the legislature from the judiciary. They use the judiciary to decide on matters of individual rights and on whether a law is ultra vires or not. They do not trust the people under their constitution. Therefore they divide the powers with checks and balances.
Our system is absolutely different. We trust our people and believe that given the truth they will make a decision that will eventually be carried out by the executive. That type of trust can only work if there are gentlemen in this house who understand the principle that the rules are there for everyone to follow. Our system of responsibility is such that when a prime minister does not know when he has been defeated on a major issue he does not know what every schoolboy knows, what every civil servant knows, what every newspaper editor knows, and I say that that man should not be prime minister.
I am simply saying that it is not only the resolutions of the Young Liberals in Montreal and in Toronto, adopted by sundry people in this house on the other side, saying that we should have a republican form of government that disturb me. When I hear a responsible minister hold forth with a philosophy that the government can be defeated as many times as it likes as long as it comes back with a vote of confidence and wins it, that disturbs me because in effect that is a congressional form of government. It is not even honest republicanism.
Under the American system, if you are a Democrat you can vote any way you like. You can condemn the president, you can impeach the president, and it does not matter; it does not defeat the government. They can have a glorious holiday all the time chewing up their head of state. We have avoided this by putting our head of state above that and at the present time that head is our Queen. But we do give battle for the right to advise the representative of the Queen in the person of the prime minister. Our system of responsibility is taught in the public schools, in the high schools and in the universities. Do not

Motion Respecting House Vote blame that poor Canada Year Book for repeating what everyone has been taught since he was in the cradle.
I have spoken about this principle in relation to the Defence Production Act, the pipe line debate, on interim supply and now on this motion. I therefore say that if the Prime Minister had done what he should have done when he came back last Tuesday he would have called his ministers together and at least asked for the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) as a very minimum. I believe he should have asked all candidates running for the Liberal leadership to resign and appointed acting ministers in their place. Surely we have no right to interfere with the right of a Liberal leadership candidate to put his best foot forward so that the Liberal delegates from all across the country can pick the best man. He is going to be our prime minister. Yet we force those candidates to sit in this house, to restrain their utterances across the country and try to run both shows at the same time.
The third thing the Prime Minister should have done was consult with the Leader of the Opposition. I think the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he has a sense of responsibility. He knows that we have to get interim supply through, he knows we have to get the supplementary estimates through, he knows we have to ratify the GATT agreements before July 1 or they go down the drain. I think he would have made arrangements to carry on the routine business of the government, get these things done, get these Liberal candidates out in the field, and then we could stay until routine business was finished. There were many things that could have been done by the Prime Minister which would have demonstrated that he had the quality of leadership and that as he was about to leave the political scene he was trying to do the right thing. Now he retires, not just pathetic as he was but shabby. This is the reason I ask every person in this house who has any awareness of what we went through to realize that when he stands up and votes he will be voting on something which affects not only his honour but also this institution and the people of Canada.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This motion not only is an attack on the parliament of Canada and the people but also on the very principle of how men deal with each other. I should like to remind the Credi-tistes and any others who think they will not have to vote on the tax increase again that it
7050	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote will be brought in in some form. If you want to vote for more taxes just vote confidence in this government and you will have them. They are going to tell you what to do once they have control.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I came into the house this afternoon it was my intention to seek the floor to take part in this debate. I think you will understand what I mean when I say that in the light of the debate of yesterday I was in a certain frame of mind; that is,
I did not intend to be too argumentative nor was I anxious to be provocative. I must confess that the speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon has slightly altered my frame of mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall try to return to the things I had intended to say after I deal with him. The Minister of Justice, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the other day, has quoted from proposals I made in this house supported by my leader, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and by other members of this party back in January, 1966. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have suggested that the course of procedure they are now following was actually proposed in the suggestions we made.
I take full responsibility for the proposals I made on that occasion and I shall have something to say about them in the course of my remarks. I object very strongly, however, to the Minister of Justice twisting what I said as he did this afternoon. When he was twisting my words I gave him the opportunity to get back on the rails by asking him a question. My question was as simple as I could make it.
I asked him whether it was not a fact that my proposal for a vote of confidence after there had been a defeat of the government on a matter of substance was that it take place only when the decision had been announced before the vote rather than after the government had been beaten. What reply did the Minister of Justice give? Did he answer my question? Not a bit. He replied to the effect that I was asking that the opposition rather than the government have the right to decide what is a matter of confidence. If that is an answer to a question, then I do not understand any language at all. In other words, when he could not answer the question he attempted to shift the ground.
[Mr. Hamilton.)
DEBATES	February 27, 1965
The fact is that in the proposal I made in January, 1966 and in the proposal we still make we do not ask that the opposition have the right to say what issue is one of confidence and what issue is not one of confidence. I am prepared to let it be the government which says whether or not the issue is one of confidence. But I do say that the government must make that decision and must make that announcement before the vote and not after.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was one of the basic elements in the proposal we in this part of the house made in January, 1966. That is the main element in our proposal which the government is ignoring in the position it is now taking. It is very clear that what happened is that the government has lost a measure, that is, it has lost a vote under all the rules that apply in this house. But having been beaten the government wants to change the rules in order to try to find some way to win back what it lost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They desire to change the rule after the event, after the defeat. It is similar to a situation where on the football field the government's team failed to catch a forward pass because their man was not in the right place and they then asked for the rules to be changed and for the play to be executed over again so that their man could get there to catch the ball.
In another part of his speech this afternoon the Minister of Justice said a great deal about the fact that the government will not reintroduce Bill No. C-193. I am glad those words are on the record. They will be there if needed in any future circumstance. It is interesting to compare these words with the statement made by the Minister of Finance on television last Sunday night when he said that a taxation measure something like it would be introduced within three or four days. His time is running out. He had better hurry.
The same Minister of Justice who stood up here and solemnly told us that no attempt will be made to reintroduce Bill No. C-193 went out of his way to try to prove to us that there are citations which support his position that defeat on third reading is not necessarily fatal, that Bill C-193 could be brought back. May I suggest to the Minister of Justice that before he relies on the citations in Beau-chesne he should read them carefully, find out where they came from and determine the
February 27, 1968	COMMONS
rulings on which they are based. When he does this I believe he will find that in a good many cases these rulings do not mean quite what they say. I suggest there is nothing to support the contention of the Minister of Justice that there is a right to reintroduce a bill defeated either on second or third reading.
In any event may I call to the attention of the minister the fact that these citations concerning third reading were written in a day when we had two separate motions at that stage. One was a motion that the bill be now read a third time. After that motion had passed, with or without debate, a further question was put in these words: That the bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper. After the session of 1956, a session of vivid memory to many of us, that procedure was changed. We no longer have two separate motions, one for third reading and one that the bill do now pass. We now have one motion. The motion we now use is the one in the name of the Minister of Finance which appears at page 702 of Votes and Proceedings for February 19, 1968, in the following words:
Whereupon Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. Benson moved,-That the said bill be now read a third time and do pass.
The citations that might have applied when the motion was only for third reading no longer apply when it is a motion that the bill be read a third time and do pass. What was defeated by a vote of 84 to 82 on Monday, February 19, was not just a motion for the then third reading of the bill. It was not just a technical proposition; it was the ultimate final decision of this house that Bill No. C-193 pass and the house voted it down. I suggest, in any man's language and in terms of the ordinary rules of fair play, that the bill was beaten, and that is that. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that I had before six o'clock I dealt with some of the observations the Minister of Justice had made in his speech this afternoon. I pointed out in particular that he, like the Prime Minister, had twisted the proposal that we made in January, 1966, to try to find in it some basis for the course of action the government is now pursuing. I also pointed out
DEBATES	7051
Motion Respecting House Vote that the Minister of Justice, like other hon. members on that side of the house, tried to allege that the third reading vote taken on Monday night, February 19, was not really as important as we all know it was.
I should like now to turn to the thoughts that I had in mind before the provocative experience of listening to the Minister of Justice this afternoon. Like my colleagues of the New Democratic party, I am opposed to the motion that is now before the house and I shall be voting against it, both because of the immediate effect that would flow from its being passed and because of my deep concern for the long run effect of the passing of this motion.
I want to devote as much as possible of my time to my concern about the long run effect of the passing of the motion, and therefore I shall be brief in my reference to the immediate situation. In my mind there is no question but that the result of an affirmative vote for this motion now before the house will be an imposition of taxes on the Canadian people similar to the taxes that were defeated on Monday night, February 19.
We were against that surtax then; we are against it now. We had no confidence then in the government that brought in that tax measure; we have no confidence in it now. What concerns us is our conviction that there is more to this motion than just an expression of confidence. It will be treated as a blank cheque which the government will use to try to bring back taxes like those that were defeated. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) made that very clear in his appearance on television on Sunday night, as well as on several other occasions.
Others have said this today, and my leader and deputy leader have said it clearly in the statements they have made in this debate, so I do not need to go into it at any further length. The immediate effect of the passing of this motion will be such that I feel everyone who is concerned about the well-being of our people and about our economy should vote against the motion and against the kind of taxation that will come if it is passed.
I said, however, Mr. Speaker, that I am even more concerned about the long run, the long range effect of this motion; in fact, an effect which I think we are creating whether we pass the motion or not. I am not one of those who think that it was out of order for the government to propose this motion. I think it was legally and constitutionally correct, and I think that Your Honour was quite
February 27, 19G8

Motion Respecting House Vote right in allowing the motion to be put and to be debated in the house. But I ask that we face this fact, that in debating this motion, and certainly if the house passes it, we will be doing something very serious; we will be, in effect, amending the constitution of Canada.
I know that for the most part people think the constitution of Canada is the British North America Act, and that is all there is to it. When there is talk about amending the constitution most people think that means amending, revising or rewriting the British North America Act. But some people know there is more to the constitution of Canada than the British North America Act and I suggest that so far as the constitution of this parliament is concerned, so far as the operation of this institution goes, we are practically without a written constitution. We make our own constitution by the things that we do over the years.
I ask hon. members to read the British North America Act again, to read it carefully and closely and try to count the number of things you can find in it that control this parliament. There is very, very little. Oh, there is a provision which says we cannot last for more than five years without an election; but we amended that in world war I. There is a provision that says we must have a redistribution every ten years, we amended that provision during world war II. There was a provision initially about the number of members for each province, about the basis of distribution, we have amended that several times. And so it goes, Mr. Speaker.
There are two or three things we have not altered. For example, there is a clear provision that we must have a Speaker, and there are some pretty strong implications about his authority. There is a clear statement that decisions made in this house shall be made on the basis of a majority vote. But there is nothing in that constitution, in the British North America Act, about our rules. There is nothing that says we must give bills first, second and third readings. There is nothing that says anything about the length of time to be spent in debate or about the kind of debates we are to have. There is a reference to money matters, that anything involving the expenditure of money must be preceded by a resolution from the Governor General-


Mr. Nielsen:: Or taxation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but so far as the general operation of the institution of parliament is


concerned, we are almost like the parliament at Westminster-we make our own rules; we run our own show. If I may digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, practically the only difference between this country and Britain, so far as parliament is concerned, is that we have a British North America Act which draws the line between the federal authority and the provincial authority. In Britain parliament is supreme and everyone knows it. Parliament is supreme in this country, too, but we do have a constitution which says that certain things are within federal jurisdiction and others are within provincial jurisdiction. Otherwise we make our rules, our traditions, and lay down the precedents for the kind of institution this is to be.
I submit that in this very debate we are adding to the precedents that are used for determining in the future what parliament can do. Why is it, for example, that when people are trying to answer the question as to whether the vote of February 19 was a motion of confidence, reference has to be made to Erskine May, to Beauchesne, to Bourinot, to Jennings, to Dicey, to Eugene Forsey, to the Canada Year Book, and so on? It is because there is no written constitution that gives the answers.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There is no document anywhere which says officially: This is a vote of confidence; this is not. We rely on precedent, we rely on tradition, and we rely on the Speaker's rulings. Indeed, if there is any element of this institution which is constitutional, it is the function that Your Honour exercises to see to it that the traditions which should be respected are continued, and that innovations are allowed only if they make common sense and meet the general will of the people. But I emphasize the fact that this is a pragmatic institution. We do not have a written constitution which says how we shall operate. Everyone knows that in the United States for a bill to become law it has to be passed by both houses and receive the president's signature. Everyone knows that if he refuses his signature, the bill is dead, unless it then gets a two thirds vote by both houses. Everyone knows that down there if a bill is defeated in one way or the other, it is dead and there is no question about it. But the president remains; he continues for the balance of the four years, because all of these things are laid down in a written constitution.
We operate with a minimum of written guide lines. We operate on the basis of tradition and precedent. I submit that this makes
February 27, 1968

the motion which we are now debating more serious in terms of our constitutional history than it is even in terms of the tax measure which lies behind it. We already have certain traditions about the question of confidence. It has been pretty well established, because it has happened quite often, that a government can be beaten on a minor matter but carry on. If everyone accepts the fact that it is a minor matter, there is no election. For example, in committee of the whole a short while ago a motion by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) which would have increased the postage rates, was defeated. The government was defeated then, but no one claimed this to be a major matter. The government did not resign, and there was no call for an election. The government was also beaten in the last parliament on the amendment which we proposed to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code regarding the number of general holidays in a year. The government stood up strongly against our amendment, but it was beaten.
It is a convention and a tradition that there are so-called minor measures which do not bring down the government. Then we have another tradition, only this one has been written into a rule-not into the constitution, but into a rule of parliament-and it has to do with supply motions. We have a rule which says that if the government is beaten by the passing of a supply amendment, in other words if the government's motion is superseded by the passing of a supply amendment, the government may immediately introduce another supply motion, and without further amendment have a vote on it, and if it is sustained the government carries on. I may say incidentally that I remember two or three of these cases in earlier years when this provision was used, notably in August, 1946, when we in this party moved an amendment to a supply motion, our amendment having to do with the subsidy on the price of milk. Our amendment carried, but before it did Mr. Howe had said that this was a free vote, in other words no confidence was involved in it. Our amendment carried, and so this device was used. Mr. St. Laurent used it two or three times on supply motions when more or less non-controversial matters were proposed. In other words it was accepted that we did not bring on an election because the government accepted an opposition amendment.
The things that we have done, such as the continuing of the government in office after the defeat of the post office measure, the defeat of an amendment to a labour bill, or
Motion Respecting House Vote the defeat on a subsidy motion, and so on, are really part of the constitution of Canada. They are there as precedents, and they are much more in the way of guide lines to us and to the Chair than anything one would find in the constitution.
If I may ask you, sir, a rhetorical question: How often in your study of the procedural problems that have come before you do you go back to the British North America Act? There are so few things in there about the operation of the house that you could go through them in no time. What you have to go back to are precedents. The precedents that we have up to this point pretty well define what we can do in terms of confidence or non-confidence, but I do not know of any instance in Canadian parliamentary history where the defeat of a major taxation measure brought in by the government has been treated as a minor matter, when it has not been treated as a measure of confidence.
Let me say again that I concede to the government the legal right to bring in the motion that is now before us; I concede to the government the legal and constitutional right to ask parliament whether or not it says "You can carry on despite that defeat", but I do ask that in deadly seriousness we realize what we are doing. We are amending the constitution of Canada, just as much as if the Minister of Justice reached unanimous agreement with the ten provincial governments in this country on an amendment to the British North America Act.
We are saying that from here on there is a new way in which we can operate in the House of Commons. We can have decisions under which the government is beaten on a major matter, and it really is not a defeat of the government. Although I oppose the passing of this motion, I want to say, not only that it is in my view in order to bring it in, but also that in my view it would be good for us to be doing some thinking and to devise some new ways of dealing with situations such as we have with minority governments. This is what we have tried to do in this party, before I made my speech in January, 1966, which has been quoted by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. I proposed that on amendments to the address, amendments to the budget, and on various proposals made by the opposition, there be an understanding in advance that the vote on the substance of those amendments should be separated from the question of whether or not the government was to be brought down,
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote whether or not there was to be an election. I believe that is still a good idea. This is a parliament of minorities-and we may continue to have them for some years. What I am suggesting is a good piece of machinery, and I think we should add it to the constitution of Canada; but let us add it knowing what we are doing, and let us add it with the necessary safeguards.
Several members of the government have said they read these speeches of ours made in January, 1966, and that this is just what they are doing. May I point out with respect that there are three major differences between our proposal of January, 1966, and what is happening now. The first one we have repeated several times but we do not seem to have got it into the heads of the government. We said that the announcement that a matter is not a vote of confidence, which would be decided separately, should be made before the vote is taken, not after. In other words, in any game you play the rules should be set before you start, not after the bully has lost a play or two in the game. In my view that is an essential feature in this kind of change in our constitution.
The second difference-and I point out that I will not press it as hard as I might press one or two other things-is that when I made my proposal in January, 1966, I made it with reference to things proposed by the opposition, expressions of opinion contained in amendments to the address or amendments to the budget. Actually, that was as far as I went. But the government has applied the principle of a second vote, not to an idea advanced by the opposition but to one of its own major pieces of legislation. The government cannot control what the opposition proposes; therefore I think it is appropriate for the government, if it has been beaten on an opposition idea, to have the right to another vote.
However, the government controls what it brings in. It decides what its tax measures are to be. I submit that that right should not extend to the government in such a situation. If the government thinks this is not completely fair and wants to have it both ways on this point, I think we could negotiate it. In other words, I do not regard the second point I am making as having the same importance as the first one about the announcement being made in advance.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The third difference is that in the proposal we made in January, 1966, we were


proposing merely a device, an arrangement of parliamentary procedure under which a government which was defeated on a motion from the opposition could carry on and could still be the government. We were not proposing a device under which the government could bring back a measure which it had presented and which had been defeated, but that is what this government is tring to do. It is trying to use our proposal as a means of obtaining the right to carry on, and extending that to a situation which will permit the government to bring back a measure that was defeated by the House of Commons on February 19. I know the Minister of Justice said this afternoon that they are not going to bring back Bill No. C-193, but I am uneasy; I am uncertain and I shall be until this story is completed. I have heard the things the Minister of Finance has said and the things the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has said. That is why I am uneasy on this point.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, if we were pursuing the kind of arrangement we suggested in 1966, it would be amending our constitution, but it would be doing it in a sensible way and in a way that would help to make minority parliaments work. In my view, these three things are essential: First, there has to be an announcement before a vote, not after, that it is not one of confidence; second, this proposal should apply only to changes brought forward by the opposition over which the government has no control; third, the government should have the right to carry on, but not the right to bring back, in the same session, a measure which has been defeated. Now, that was our idea, and it is one which ought to be worked into the fabric of this house. I think the distortion of it which has been made by this government is dangerous. If this motion passes, or even if it is defeated, it will be quoted. We will have added to our constitution a precedent that is just as meaningful, just as useful to the government and to the Chair as anything else that is there. From this time forward, the next time a government has been beaten on a vote, no matter how major it is, the government will be able to say, "We did it in February, 1968, and we can do it again." We will bring in another motion and we will go through this monkey business all over again. The right to do this will in effect be part of our constitution if we pass this motion. That is the main reason I am against it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could enlarge on these ideas but if I did I would be repeating
February 27, 1968

myself. These are the kinds of thoughts I had in mind earlier today to give to the house, before the Minister of Justice provoked us as he did before the supper recess. I repeat, however, that this is a terribly serious thing we are doing. We are not just passing one simple motion in the month of February, 1968: We are amending the constitution of Canada; we are changing the way in which this parliament works. Yes, we should make changes, and I think we should take into account the minority situation. We should take into account ways and means of staying here and doing the business of the country. But we should not support a device that enables the government to twist our words and enables it to use a new rule after it has lost out on the first one, to bring back something that has been defeated by the House of Commons.
I see that my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker, and that means the other thing I wanted to say I shall have to compress into a couple of minutes. Perhaps it is not related to what I have been saying, and I have no doubt that I may be accused of acting like a school teacher lecturing his pupils. I am going to take that chance, and there is another chance I am going to take, too. I hope that the experience of last Monday night, February 19, and the experience of the days that have gone by since, have made us realize the importance of attendance in the House of Commons. This whole sorry mess which we have had these last eight or nine days would not have happened at all if two or three more Liberal members had been present on February 19. When people like the Minister of Justice stand up and complain about the eight days-by the way, this motion has been under debate only three days-that have been taken, let the government members recall that the whole reason for this mess lies in the fact they did not have their people here. I will go further than that now, and say that I hope we all realize that, after all, attendance in this House of Commons is important.


Erik Nielsen: Why? A vote does not mean anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says the rule does not mean anything.


Erik Nielsen: No, a vote does not mean anything, so why be here?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry I misunderstand, for I know the hon. member was paying attention to my previous remarks in which I
Motion Respecting House Vote contended that we should have the kind of rules which will make votes mean something. I think it is quite clear that we would not have had this mess if attendance in the House of Commons were taken more seriously. If I may indulge in a bit of a commercial, on Sunday night the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and I had the privilege of being on one of the C.B.C.'s open line programs called "Cross Country Check-up". We were asked to discuss parliamentary procedure, in the hope that we would get questions that would pry into our academic knowledge of these things. We did not get very many questions of that general kind. They all dealt with last week's crisis. However, although I did not keep exact count, I know I am safe in saying that at least three out of five of the questions-they came by long distance from all over Canada-were identical: Why weren't the members here?


An hon. Member:: They were not all in
Jamaica.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize I am getting support from my Conservative friends, and that they are ricocheting these remarks across to the Liberals. However, I am directing my remarks to the whole house. The fact is that we had only 166 members in the House of Commons last Monday night, out of 265. This is not to our credit. I hope, as a result of this experience, we will realize that it is our job to be here. I agree with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that we must make a change in our practice which will make it meaningful to be here. We can increase the importance of our being here if we make the kind of changes that will make it possible for all parties and all members to participate in debate, and will make all votes really significant.
Mr. Speaker, I deplore the way in which things have been twisted by the other side. With the rest of my colleagues, I say we should defeat this motion that is now before us, because in effect it is a motion that would open the door to bringing back taxes against which we are strongly opposed. I am opposed to it also because I think the passing of this motion opens the door to constitutional changes, in fact makes constitutional changes, that would not be for the benefit of parliament. On the other hand, if we study our problems and look at the things we can do, I think we can make changes that will make our parliamentary procedures even better. This I hope we will do very soon.
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I feel impelled to rise and participate in this debate because of remarks that have been made, some involving myself personally to which I shall refer later. But before launching into the facts and figures related to this situation, I wondered if the members of the house were aware that if this vote carries in favour of the cabinet the Liberal party is adopting Nancy Greene as its patron saint, since she typifies how to win while going downhill.
I had prepared most of my remarks for this evening prior to the manufacture of the majority to put down the so-called manufactured crisis. I want the comments I am going to make to be on the record because I believe that the upset a week ago Monday and the debate of the last few days has shown the absolute necessity of altering the rules of procedure in the Canadian House of Commons.
[DOT] (8:30 pjn.)
I have been arguing for 40 years that the British and Canadian system of parliamentary responsibility, under which a government may be defeated on any vote, is ridiculous; that we in this country should adopt the United States system whereby Congress is free to vote as it likes during the four years of its life; and the United States parliamentary or governmental system is not upset. In my close study of the United States system during my lifetime I have seen beaten down many measures that the executive branch-the cabinet -had wanted to see carried. But the executive branch did not have to leave Washington. During the four year term members are free to speak their minds; no threat is held over them to the effect: "Unless you support the administration's proposals we will have a general election right away". This situation-I will quote the Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh): "this rotten situation"-that developed a week ago Monday because of poor handling on the Liberal side of the house puts the klieg lights on a circumstance that should be corrected.
I believe that good will come out of this poor situation because we will have to alter the rules of the house, and alter them quickly. We cannot have a situation continue whereby men who hold a definite opinion on a certain vote will still vote for the motion if they are sitting to the right of the Speaker because they are told that it is the desire of the cabinet that the motion pass, while good men and women sitting on the left of the
{Mr. Knowles.]
Speaker will vote against it because that is the opposition's fancied role.
This situation is ridiculous, as I say. There are brains on both sides of the aisle in the Canadian House of Commons, and the Canadian nation is entitled to the benefit of those brains. It is childish to say that all proper thinking occurs only to the right of the Speaker, and faulty thinking to the left. That is a fallacy that cannot be allowed to stand. A majority vote in the chamber should set the law of the land.
I am getting fed up to the teeth listening to people talk of Harry Truman's celebrated remark: "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen". I agree with that remark of the ex-president. Criticism that is directed to individual members of the House of Commons and Senate can often only be endured on the basis that if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. However, I should like to give a Canadian simile that I think is better, and say: "If you can't last the three periods of a hockey game, don't put on your skates".
I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons provisional reprint of the standing orders, and standing order 75, to be found at page 70, distinctly states:
Every bill shall receive three several readings, on different days, previously to being passed.
A bill is not passed until it has received three several readings. Has the Liberal party forgotten standing order 75, Mr. Speaker? In standing order 76 we read:
When a bill is read in the house, the Clerk shall certify upon it the readings-
Note the plural.
-and the time thereof. After it has passed, he shall certify the same, with the date, at the foot of the bill.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that three readings are mandatory before the passing of a bill. It is absolutely ridiculous to stand up and argue that this was a technical defeat on a minor stage, third reading; that argument is not worthy of anyone with experience in parliament. Third reading is as important as second reading, and is as important as first reading, and it should be treated as such.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If the party in power cannot exert eternal vigilance with regard to the measures that it brings forward, then it had better get out of office and let somebody who can exert eternal vigilance take over the treasury benches. To make the
February 27, 1968

statement that this income tax measure passed first reading, passed second reading and passed clause by clause study only to fail on third reading is absolutely childish-and I can think of no other word.
Is the government going to tell us that if a team does not score in the first and second periods of a hockey game it has not the right to score in the third period, and win the game? Are we being told that because a ball team does not score in the first eight innings it has no right to knock a home run with the bases loaded in the ninth and win the game? You cannot change the rules if you find the ball game going against you and you cannot change the rules in the third period of a hockey game.
It has also been stated that a small house defeated the motion. I believe the vote was 84 to 82. I find this funny. If this was a small house, then why did not the government bring up again that post office resolution that was voted down 14 to 11? I was in the house that afternoon and when the 14 to 11 vote was taken I was up in the far corner reading my Hansard proofs. If an 82 to 84 vote is a small house, Mr. Speaker, what in the name of heaven is a vote of 14 to 11? If a vote of 82 to 84 was only a technical defeat, then why has the government not brought forward the post office resolution? That resolution was to have raised, I understand, $30 million a year, money that was vitally necessary.
The Ottawa terminal railway bill in 1964-65 passed first reading, passed second reading and was referred to the transport committee. In the transport committee proceedings the late hon. member for Hull, Alexis Caron, moved an amendment to some of the clauses in the bill that provided for the composition of the board of directors of the Ottawa terminal railway station. That amendment of the late Mr. Caron was carried by a majority of one.
The interesting thing about that, Mr. Speaker, is this. Immediately the word came down: Bottle up the bill in the transport committee until the house prorogues. The bill was bottled up in the committee all right, until the house prorogued, and it never came on the floor of the House of Commons again. That bill had had first reading, second reading and was in process of clause by clause study in the transport committee. If a defeat in the House of Commons of 84 to 82 is only a technical defeat, then why was not the Ottawa terminal railway bill brought forward

Motion Respecting House Vote again? Why was the post office resolution not brought forward again?
In this particular matter, Mr. Speaker, I am able to speak with a clear conscience and with clean hands. I mean that, because I was not in the house on Monday night, February 19. I was paired with an opposition member. I should also say this, that in five and a half years in this house I have never known a pair of mine to break down, and the Liberal whip will bear me out in this regard.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I was absent from this house on that occasion, being in the city of Toronto. On December 14 the leader of the Liberal party stated that he was resigning his office as leader of the party some time in the following spring. A week ago Monday night I was engaged in the happy task of selecting delegates to the Liberal leadership convention who are going to pick a new leader for the Liberal party.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We had over 600 people at the hall, that being the largest delegate selection meeting to be held in any of the Toronto ridings to date. There are five yet to be held; but of the 19 held so far our attendance of 600 was the biggest. Maybe some of the up and coming five special meetings to select delegates will have a bigger attendance; I don't know. But I was paired. That pair stood until Tuesday. That was the agreement, because we were conducting the election of delegates to the leadership convention in the city of Ottawa in April.
Do not blame me for the vote. I find that members of the cabinet want to know where the members of the party were when the vote was on. But they do not ask the members of the party; no, no. That would take too much time. The members are supposed to come crawling to them like dogs and whimper, "You can't blame me; I had a pair," or "I was off sick."


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Responsibility for what happened in this house on February 19 does not rest on the shoulders of every one of those men who were away. In Prince Edward Island there were 21 members of a House of Commons committee, ten of them being Liberals, and 11 were opposition members. They were down there on transport committee business which was authorized by the House of Commons. Everything they were
7058	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote doing was legitimate, yet people are screaming, "Where were the 21 members?" Somebody should find out that they were about 15 miles from Charlottetown, stuck in a snowstorm behind a jackknifed truck. That is no disgrace to those 21 members; there is no discredit in that. But that is more than I can say for people who go off for a Jamaican rum swizzle and do not even leave a pair behind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: When I came back to this house on the Tuesday after February 19 I spoke to some of the officials of the party, and I spoke about my pair. Unlike the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) who says that nobody called on him before the manufactured majority was secured, I had three cabinet ministers call on me. I must say that, speaking to them individually, I said that the government had been defeated on Monday night, 84 to 82. I said-based on the information I can get-I am only a private Liberal member and not supposed to know anything, and certainly I am not told anything-the best information I can get is that a resolution is coming forward which will, if passed, revive Bill C-193 and vote confidence in the cabinet. I said to each individual member of the cabinet, "I will not vote for any resolution that has two parts. That bill was killed on Monday night 84 to 82; the only way you can revive that bill is to prorogue this house and bring the bill in in another session, if you wish. If you want to do that I will vote for the bill in a new house, but I certainly will not vote in any way, shape or form for a revival of Bill C-193, in the present session, no matter who tries to bring it in."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I based my statement on a ruling-I understand it is perfectly all right to refer to a ruling of the present Speaker -made by the present Speaker of the House of Commons in January, 1967. I have XEROX copies of it in my hand. I showed it to two of the three cabinet ministers and said, "We stand or fall on this, because I have every confidence in the Speaker." This ruling has to do with an amendment that the Liberals wanted to bring in to counteract a defeat they had suffered in committee of the whole on the transport bill.
I was in the house that night when the vote was carried 59 to 57 by the opposition. From what I have been told, the people in western Canada are very happy that the opposition carried that amendment to the main bill. But

DEBATES	February 27. 1968
you may remember that a couple of days after the bill was altered by opposition action, this side of the house endeavoured to bring in an amendment which would have reintroduced into the original draft of the bill that which had been eliminated by opposition action.
Reading from the Journals of the House of Commons of Canada for January 26, 1967 you can see the Speaker's ruling on the matter. He said the amendment could not be brought in, stating as follows:
Honourable Members of course are all agreed on the most Important rule of procedure, that a question which has once been negatived cannot be proposed again in the same session.
He says in the last sentence of his decision:
I am prepared to interpret the doubt in favour of the most important principle in the citation, and to reject the amendment.
Not only was the Speaker correct in his decision of January 26, 1967 but I like his use of the adjective "the". He did not say "Hon. members... are all agreed on a rule." He said, "Honourable Members ... are all agreed on the most important rule of procedure, that a question which has once been negatived cannot be proposed again in the same session." In the last sentence he says, ".. .in favour of the most important principle in the citation". It is not "an important principle".
I told a member of the cabinet that if there were two parts to the resolution, it would be opposed to the bitter end and it could not be brought in in any way because the Speaker had already made a ruling; and who are we to go against his learned decision.
One of the members of the cabinet said to me, "But if the proposed resolution passes the Speaker's eye, will it be satisfactory to you?" I said, "If the resolution should pass the Speaker's eye as containing only one part and not two, it would be satisfactory to me. If there is no statement made that Bill C-193 will be revived in this session of parliament and if no effort is made to circumvent the Speaker's decision, as the cabinet tried to do in the case of the transport bill, I can support the continuation of the cabinet in office." That is what I said.
I want to read to you how the Prime Minister on Friday last, February 23, rose to defend his position. He made this statement inside the first 200 words. On page 6921 of Hansard he is reported to have said:
We,... accept the fact of that rejection.
February 27, 19G8

Then, speaking of the motion, he went on to say:
It does not ask the house to rescind or reconsider any vote.
I now wish to refer to standing order 25 of this house which says that no member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
You will notice that on page 6923 the Prime
Minister says:
It does not ask the house to rescind or reconsider any vote.
Later he goes on to say:
We have made it quite clear we are not going to ask for further progress on that bill-
In this manner the cabinet had put only one tooth in the motion; they had cleaned it up in the sense that I was told, previously, that it was going to have two teeth. One of them having been removed, according to the very learned decision of the Speaker, the motion now covers only one point.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want you to consider the remark that there was only a small house which voted 84 to 82; and therefore it was a small technical mistake-it was a fluke, we are told. Well, look at the capital punishment bill. We retained capital punishment in this house by 143 to 112, with 255 members voting. And what happened? Fourteen months later the cabinet brought the same measure back on the floor of the House of Commons. If a vote of 255 members will not hold them, what will?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The bill was revived and put through by a vote of 114 to 87. Previously it was defeated, 143 to 112 but now it was put through 114 to 87. As I said at the time, what 112 members could not do in one month 114 did 14 months later, when the question was revived as a government bill, and being told that there was to be a free vote. I had never heard such a bastard phrase before.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I say it is time some of the rules of this house were changed so that free votes could be called much more frequently without the expectation of an election every time a cabinet measure may be defeated. I want to point out that we have been advised that this was decided by a very small vote, 82 to 84, and it was a Monday, too; normally they would not
Motion Respecting House Vote have a vote on a Monday, so this was trickery, underhand work or something. Mr. Speaker, on February 7 I introduced an amendment on third reading. We are told, now, that a vote on third reading is only a technical matter and that defeat does not count. Yet against the amendment I brought in simply to ask the house to revert to committee of the whole to reconsider clause 28 of the broadcasting bill, the Liberal party lined up 107 votes to ensure that my proposal should not carry.
If third reading does not matter, why go to the trouble of lining up 107 votes? Third reading is only technical, after all, and if the amendment carried what harm would be done? It seems to be a case of heads you win and tails I lose, and the people who follow the rules of the house do not seem able to get the verdict which their foresight should make available to them.
On this question of the income tax bill: One of the speakers in this debate made reference to a gentleman by the name of Jennings, I think, who wrote a book entitled "Cabinet Government". Well, I do not like to hear citations from books entitled "Cabinet Government". We are having too much cabinet government as it is. I would like to see more parliamentary government and less cabinet government, and I do not like quotations from that book.
I mentioned a moment ago that I wished to refer to a personal matter. I have kept very quiet since that vote a week ago Monday. I have always been here, never absent. But I picked up the Toronto Globe and Mail of Thursday last and read a story there under the headline: "Crisis deepens as parties reveal strategies". On page 8, I came across these interesting words. Mr. Pearson had called what was described as a formal press conference-I don't know whether anyone attended in tails and bow ties, or what.
Mr. Pearson noted that Mr. Stanfield had suggested that the Prime Minister might turn the government over to another Liberal.
I thank the hon. gentleman for that suggestion.
He said he would have to ask Mr. Stanfield whom he had in mind, adding that any member of the government would make a good prime minister.
The report continues:
"Even Liberal M.P. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber) ?" a reporter asked.
"He's not a member of the government," Mr. Pearson shot back.
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
1 want to ask what is the position of the 100 odd Liberals on this side of the house who are not in the cabinet. If they are not members of the government, why bring them back here to vote on questions of confidence and similar matters? Why cannot the government handle these things by themselves-they seem to be able to do everything?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on Thursday, February 22, and I delivered it to his office myself. Perhaps I might put it on record at this point.
For some years now I have been arguing that Canada does not enjoy government by its representatives but is the victim of cabinet government. This, of course, denotes the distinct difference between the members of the cabinet and the men and women who have been elected to the House of Commons by their electors with the idea that they would be part of the government of Canada.
When I was asked to run on the Liberal ticket in 1962, I was asked if I would help overthrow the Diefenbaker government. I wasn't asked if I would help to overthrow the Diefenbaker cabinet. When I was renominated by the Liberal party in 1963, it was with the firm intention on the part of the Liberals of York-Humber to overthrow the Diefenbaker government-not the Diefenbaker cabinet. I ran in 1962 and 1963, along with you, without anyone knowing who would be in the Pearson cabinet if the Liberals achieved government status. It did not take me long to learn after 1963 that a private Liberal member of parliament amounts to nothing in the eyes of a cabinet with overweening conceit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: My letter continued:
In the Globe and Mail of this morning, February 22, 1968, there is reference in the fourth column on page 8 to your comment that Mr. Stanfield had suggested that the Prime Minister might turn the government over to another Liberal. You are reported as having added that any member of the government would make a good Prime Minister. I note the distinction between what Mr. Stanfield is reported to have said, he used the word "Liberal", and what you are reported to have remarked, you used the word "government". Then some reporter asked you if even Liberal M.P. Ralph Cowan would make a good Prime Minister. You are then quoted by the Globe and Mail as having said "He is not a member of the government".
On behalf of those hundred odd Liberal members of parliament who are not members of the cabinet, would you be kind enough to advise us what our status is? There are Liberal voters throughout Canada who think that Liberal members of parliament are members of a Liberal government. If I am not a member of the Liberal government of the day, who or what am I? I personally could not care less what you have to say about me, but I would like to be able to tell the other hundred odd Liberal members of parliament who are not in the cabinet, just what their status is in your eyes.

I am holding in my hand one of the weekly calls to caucus. No doubt you like the wording, "A meeting of the supporters of the government will be held etc., etc." Every time I get one of these I wonder what we private Liberal members are, since it is evident from the call we are not considered members of the government.
Now that the Canadian public has your assurance that I am not a member of the government, you have no idea how free I feel at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I then told the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that I would second his amendment; he had asked me once or twice whether I would do that. I felt quite free to do so and I did so in order that he might talk on his amendment.
In this connection I should like to quote some references and comments with regard to private Liberal members of this house who were absent. I am sorry to say some of them are hesitant to speak up; that is not a shortcoming on my part, I am told. I have here a copy of the Toronto Evening Telegram of last night, Monday, February 26, and on the front page I read:
Prime Minister Pearson admitted on national television last night that the Liberals blundered in the tax bill defeat last Monday. "Of course they blundered-"
Now I was asked to be one of the members of the Pearson team in 1962 and 1963 and 1965. It is some team, when the captain says "they blundered". Where was the captain? As far as we can find out, he was not even paired.
"Of course they blundered and when a Government has 129 members who could vote for it and could muster only 82 there is a blunder. I'm not trying to excuse that," he said. "I knew this was a possibility. I didn't expect to end my days in peace.
"I was very angry-"
Well, my second daughter lived in Jamaica for two years after her marriage and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very pleasant place in which to be angry with anybody. The beauty of it is that there is such a great distance between here and there that one is not aware of the anger until some time after it has worn off.
Here is another quotation from page 4 of the same newspaper:
"I was shocked and enraged," Mr. Pearson said. "I was directing my anger toward myself for being away ... to our caucus ... the members who were not there."
Well, I was not there, and if anyone has been directing any anger to me I am not
February 27, 1968

aware of it so far, and I am speaking for a large number of Liberals who were absent that Monday evening because they had legitimate reasons for being absent; and there is no reason for belabouring them for not being here.
On the front page of the Toronto Star last night there appeared a five-column picture taken outside the door of the House of Commons and there was a quotation underneath it: "Our Government Blundered".
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
What blunder was there on the part of the people who were paired and who were not here? What blunder was there on the part of those Liberals who were snowbound in that bus outside Charlottetown? Private Liberal members are not considered members of the government. Was there any blunder on the part of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) who had been sent to New Delhi, and who went there with the cabinet's full consent? I would like to see less of this open handed blaming of private Liberal members who were going where they should be going and standing where they should be standing, and not criticism from people a thousand miles from here at a time when their presence was vital, very vital to this vote.
We were even told by the Prime Minister that here we were all chastising ourselves. I do not know a Liberal member who had a legitimate excuse for not voting that night who was chastising himself. If this motion will carry, it will establish precedents for the future, as brought out by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) when he was speaking the other day. He said that if this motion should carry it will not be necessary for the cabinet to win votes in future. They can simply wave their hands and say, "Today won't count. We will have another vote on Monday that will really count." We won't even need to ring the division bells. This proposed vote if carried will set a precedent that will have to be eliminated by adopting the United States congressional system where people are free to vote during a four year period.
I am faced with this problem of the two pronged vote. I said I could never support a two pronged resolution. I will follow the Speaker and I will follow him to the end. As I say, they have removed one of the two teeth, and now we are to have a single vote. It was interesting to me, before the majority was manufactured, to note that this motion
Motion Respecting House Vote does not express confidence. It is worded so as to read:
This house does not regard its vote on February 19th in connection with third reading of Bill C-193, which had carried in all previous stages, as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
It is quite interesting that the cabinet does not ask for a confidence vote. They say that this is not regarded as a vote of non-confidence in the government. The fact that they have brought this motion forward proves that that vote on Monday night of last week was a vote of confidence. Otherwise why was this motion brought forward?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: If this was not a non-confidence vote the cabinet could have proceeded to bring in supplementary estimates which must be passed very shortly, or could have proceeded on interim supply which we are also going to need very shortly. But rather than bring in two such subjects as that, since the cabinet had not been defeated on a confidence motion-according to the talk we have been hearing-it would not have been necessary to bring in this motion. The fact that it has been brought in shows that the vote on third reading was a confidence vote, and the opposition is to be congratulated for having been on its toes at the time of third reading.
I am faced with the problem of going back on my statement that if one half of the proposed resolution was eliminated I would support the other half. I do not want to place myself in that position, but I come to this open situation. I entered this house in 1962. In November and December of 1962 and in January 1963-I have looked up all the Hansard records on it-the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) led the assault on the government of the day with regard to those pieces of legislation that had been introduced under order in council by that government.
I have in my hands a copy of Hansard for December 20,	1962. At page 2884 it is
recorded:
The house resumed from Thursday, December 6-
And I may say this went back to November 22 and November 8
-consideration of the motion of Mr. Martin (Essex East)-
who was seeking to have correspondence tabled:
-on the subject of surcharge and imports order, P.C. 1962-902, dated June 24, 1962, and the amendment to the surcharge and imports order, P.C.
February 27, 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote
1962-987, dated July 11, 1962, and the import control list as amended by P.C. 1962-903, dated June 24, 1962, with particular reference to the legality of such orders.
The argument with regard to the production of those papers, which we never did see, was based on the fact that the government of the day in 1962 was imposing taxes without proper authority. This involved some sleight of hand with respect to the Customs Tariff Act and the Financial Administration Act. I have mentioned this once before in the house, and I will mention it a second time. We were all indebted to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having exposed the fact that the Financial Administration Act was not being observed, since it provided that a list be made and tabled showing the remission of items over $1,000, according to the legerdemain adopted by the previous government.
If this present motion does not pass and if the Governor General should be advised to call on another person to take over control of the government, we will move from a party which has suffered defeat on the floor of the House of Commons on a money tax bill. They tell me that it was only a little bill, that it would bring in only $475 million next year. I am telling you inflation has really hit this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Some people sneered at the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe-I was not one of them-because in a fit of anger in this house he ejaculated, "What's a million"? If they snickered and sneered at the late C. D. Howe for asking what's a million dollars, what are they going to say when they are told that this was only a technical defeat, that it was only going to cost the cabinet $475 million?
Now, Mr. Speaker, $475 million is not a technical defeat, but I am faced with the choice of supporting a motion here which would allow this cabinet to prorogue the house, bring in a new session and revive the bill which was defeated a week ago Monday-and I would vote for that bill-or run the risk of turning the government over to a crew who by order in council, without reference to parliament, started to tax the people of Canada in 1962 for $200 million a year as then estimated, and we still do not know what the total was going to be ultimately. I must state that since the cabinet took the second tooth out, and since I have a choice between six of one and half a dozen of the other I will have to vote in favour of the

motion that will be coming to a vote very shortly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have often maintained and supported the thesis that it is here in the House of Commons that debates should be conducted, and not over the airways. I suggest to you, sir, that today we have had an example of extremely useful debate which has contributed very much to the serious subject that we have before us.
We have had the good fortune to hear from experienced and able people today. We have had new ideas put before us that had not been canvassed previously. We have had some other ideas and suggestions underlined and brought more forcibly to our attention. That is why I have always maintained that here in the House of Commons is where debate should be conducted, even if it takes a little time and is not completed in one or two days. On a matter like this, which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in his very reasoned and able speech pointed out affects the constitution of our country, why should we not debate the thing at some length?
This will become an historic debate. It will be referred to for years by political scientists, historians, and all those who are studying the history of parliament. The ideas that have been put forward today should be considered. If modifications should be introduced into our parliament this is the place in which that should be done, for parliament itself is an evolving institution.
It has changed over the years, and yet it has remained the same; it has remained the centre, the heart and the soul of democracy and of freedom. So, sir, that is one reason I approve of having debates in the House of Commons which are not terminated in one or two days. I do not object to the statements that have been made on radio and television. What I do object to is the implication to the public that two or three days of television and radio conversations and newspaper editorials ends the issue. That is what I object to-the implication that then there should be a counting of heads, and let us get on with something else. I believe today's debate has shown that there is some value to my criticism of a public debate over the air waves.
February 27, 1988	COMMONS
It is my intention now to deal with the central issue in the controversy that is engaging the attention of the house, namely the purpose and implications of the motion which is before us and the result that will flow from its adoption. I want to do this because I believe the public has not been completely informed with regard to the central issue. I consider that this motion, if approved, will convey to the executive, the cabinet, complete and absolute power over parliament. I will show how over the years the power of the Commons has been gradually diminished and how the rights and privileges of members have been steadily eroded in the course of the period in which I have had the pleasure and honour of being a member of this house.
The process of restricting the authority of the house began seriously with the election of the present government in 1963. Steps were soon taken to effect alterations in the rules, with the object of restricting debate and increasing the power of the executive. Prior to 1963 in this evolving institution the practice and custom of the house was to set up a rules and procedure committee under the chairmanship of the Speaker to consider modifications of the rules. In the period from 1952 to 1963, or in the period between 1952 and 1962 which is the period with which I am familiar, that was the method followed under the Speakers of that day. The committee on which the various parties were represented reported to the house only those changes in the rules for which there was unanimous agreement. Quite a number of changes were made, but I shall not take the time of the house tonight to recount these. In 1964 the Liberal government rejected that method and substituted the government's proposals for changes in the rules. Instead of having an all-party agreement the government insisted on having a majority vote on the changes which it considered to be best for the house and, despite strenuous objections, imposed the present rules.
Those recent changes imposed by this government have had serious consequences. The consideration of the main estimates has been limited to 30 days. Experience over the last three years has shown how advantageous that has been to the government. The estimates of many departments have not been considered at all by the house but have been put through automatically by the guillotine method on the thirtieth day. This has curtailed in a very marked manner the freedom of members to discuss proposed expenditures and has 27053-445
DEBATES	7063
Motion Respecting House Vote enlarged unduly the power of the executive. The second recent change in the rules is the method of closure of debate under the title of allocation of time. This practice ruthlessly limits freedom of members and gives enormous power to the executive.
These limitations of members' rights and these additions to the control and influence of the executive have altered the nature of parliament and have reduced its effectiveness under the specious argument of modernizing the rules and getting on with the business. Many members have been misled into shackling parliament and transferring power from the house to the executive. The motion which is now before the house and which appears on the order paper will complete the process of making the executive supreme, because now the executive will control the votes of the House of Commons. This constitutes absolute power. Up to this time votes in the Commons have been considered to be of great importance. They have imposed a restraint on the government and frequently have been a threat to the continuance of the government. Faced with the possibility of an adverse vote successive governments frequently have modified measures which have been placed before the house. In some instances they have withdrawn them. That fear will now be removed. An adverse vote may be circumvented by the introduction of a motion of confidence with the implication of all the dire effects of a general election, unless the members bow to the government.
How effective that threat is may soon be shown in this house. Already some critics of the government have indicated their intention to either vote for this motion or abstain. This ensures the government of a majority. If it works on this basis it will work in the future and will be utilized in the future. The method which now is about to be established by the government will effectively and inevitably weaken seriously the authority of parliament. The Prime Minister and members of the cabinet will have a power equal to those of any dictator. The main strength of the House of Commons has been its control over taxation. The rejection by the house of Bill No. C-193 on Monday, February 19 was an excellent example of the exercise of that control. The Commons refused to impose on the people the extra taxation proposed by the government.
Parliament had it origin in the summoning of representatives of the people to approve of taxation in order to provide revenue for the
7064	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote crown. Over the centuries parliament gradually gained full control of the finances of the state, reduced the power of absolute monarchs, destroyed the belief in the divine right of kings, established responsible government and vested in the executive or cabinet certain limited authority. In Canada today we have been witnessing the gradual but steady increase in the power of the executive, now culminating in the attempt of the executive to grasp absolute power. In the future no government, no matter how incompetent, how extravagant or how autocratic will be replaced during its five year term of office unless by its voluntary action or by a revolt of government members. So long as the executive can assemble sufficient bodies to provide a majority for a vote of confidence a government will be able to continue in office and impose whatever taxation it desires, indulge in whatever extravagances it fancies and pass whatever legislation it considers suitable for its purposes.
No vote in the House of Commons will have any meaning except as a recorded opinion. No member in the future will feel especially required to cast a vote. What urgency will be attached to voting; what importance will it have. Absenteeism will flourish as never before. Debates will deteriorate. Why bother attacking a government bill or moving amendments or gathering in members to vote on second reading or in the committee stage or on third reading when the whole process can be nullified by executive action? Not even the time honoured votes on the speech from the throne will have any validity. If an adverse vote occurred on that occasion the executive would argue that it was just a mistake, that the program should be seen in detail and that the house would surely want to reconsider the matter rather than have an immediate election. Consequently a new motion of confidence would be introduced.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
What about the well known non-confidence motions on supply? They will be meaningless from now on. If they are adverse, the government will not resign but will argue that the house was merely expressing criticism of some parts of the government's program or its administration, and that the proper course would be to have another vote rather than a general election. The votes on the budget, always heretofore considered as crucial and vital to the government's policy, will no longer have any meaning whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	February 27. 1968


Gordon Minto Churchill: We had a startling example of that just last week. If there is an adverse vote on the budget the government will bring in another motion, members will rethink the problem and have a second chance to decide whether they really did want an immediate election or were merely intending to express some dissatisfaction with part of the government's proposals.
The motion now before us, as has been pointed out by other speakers, is an attempt to introduce into the parliamentary system an element of the republican system in practice in the United States. There the executive, separate and apart from Congress, puts forward legislative matters but does not resign if those items are not passed; nor can the executive be voted out of office. The Canadian executive, as part of parliament, is responsible to parliament and heretofore has been subject to dismissal by parliament. Now, under the proposed new arrangement, the executive will no longer be in any danger of dismissal.
This motion strikes at the heart of the parliamentary system. It is subversive of our constitutional practice. It is destructive of our system of government. It is a dictatorial measure aimed at reducing parliament to the status of a debating society. Its object is to place absolute power in the hands of the executive. This motion also endangers the freedom of the citizen in that it destroys the power of the member of parliament. If I am wrong with regard to the seriousness of this situation, I am not the only one in the country who is wrong and I intend to produce a few pieces of evidence along that line.
In the Toronto Telegram of Tuesday, February 20, I read these words in reference to the suggestion that a want of confidence vote might be asked for:
This is wrong. A vote of confidence should not be allowed. This becomes an issue of the supremacy of parliament, and parliament has already expressed its opinion.
Parliament is greater than any government or party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Montreal Gazette of February 22 contains these words:
It has come Close-
Referring to the government.
-to placing itself in contempt of parliament. In the brief sitting yesterday the government found rushing upon it, like a tide, the fundamental issues of parliamentary democracy. If the house does not have full and final control over money bills, it has full and final control over nothing.
February 27, 1968

The Globe and Mail of February 21 says:
The truth is that if there was to be a second-chance confidence vote every time a government, minority or otherwise, was defeated on a major money bill, there would no longer be responsible government in this country-
If they were allowed to get away with it, how many of them would we see in parliament again-
Referring to members of parliament.
-except on those state occasions when an official want of confidence of vote had been called? The government could be defeated on major program after major program, and so long as enough politicians felt disinclined for an immediate election, the boys could trot back to Ottawa and vote continuing confidence in the government.
In the interval between defeat and confidence motion, governments would be free to make whatever deals or hand out whatever patronage they thought would be necessary to sustain confidence.
That is a rather strong statement coming from the Globe and Mail and indicating some of the perhaps not recognized implications of this action. This article concludes with these words:
Even Prime Minister Pearson, in his hour of difficulty, should not want this for Canada.
Then I quote from the Gazette of Monday, February 26, an article under the heading, "What Precedent for the Future?" This, sir, is the matter that has bothered me from the beginning of this crisis-what precedent for the future? What are we going to hand down to our successors? We do not last forever here. What is the parliament in the future going to be? Let us see what the Gazette has to say:
The importance of the vote in the House of Commons ... is no longer whether the government will this time be defeated .. . The more serious question is what sort of precedent will be set for the future, if the Prime Minister's motion is passed.
This is always the chief difficulty with unusual methods and procedures. Even if they succeed in accomplishing some immediate and temporary aim, they linger on, to influence the future.
Parliamentary life revolves largely on precedents. What sort of precedent is this motion setting up, for years to come?
This precedent could have various effects upon parliament's future. For one thing, it could induce a new carelessness in governments. Hitherto, the possibility of defeat in the house on a bill of great importance has always been an exceedingly serious matter-
All this, now, could be changed. It would be no longer vital If a government were defeated. It can always do the thing over again, in the same way that a movie director can cut a length of film and consign it to the studio floor and call back the actors for a retake.
I submit that this is fairly weighty evidence to support the point of view that I have been bringing forward. In the Winnipeg Tribune of
27053-445 i
Motion Respecting House Vote Saturday, February 24, under the heading, "Parliament, our finest institution", an article by R. W. Queen-Hughes contains this paragraph:
In an age when unchecked power is becoming ever more concentrated the parliamentary system, as evolved by trial and error, is an incomparable medium for preserving the freedoms of the individual. No court anywhere is better equipped to do that than the people's sovereign representatives ... that is, their members of parliament.
Those are quotations from newspapers. I now quote the words of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party when speaking in Ottawa on Saturday, February 24. The leader of that party used these words, with every one of which I agree and I think they should be printed and dispatched to every Conservative in this country and to all those who are interested in the preservation of our freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: These are the words:
Under the system as amended, or invented, by Messrs. Pearson and Caouette, the executive branch becomes stronger, parliament weaker; the executive becomes less responsible, parliament less supreme; it becomes easier for cabinet to have its will and its way, harder for parliament or the people to stop it.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Cabinet becomes more free, parliament-and Canadians-become less free.
... Thus is history written. Thus, an institution is altered. Thus, freedom is diminished. Thus, responsibility is eroded. Thus, we strengthen the hand of the apparatus that governs and weaken the protection of those who are governed.
I wish I had written these words myself.
I hope people are beginning to see the issue as I see it. When I showed this quotation to some people in the news media today I asked them "Why didn't you people on radio and television repeat that from your stations every hour on the hour, as you did the propaganda which the Prime Minister put out last week?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do not tell me that the real issue has been presented to the people so that they were able to make a decision on Friday night or on Thursday night. How many of them heard the statement, or statements similar to it, that our freedom is diminished?


Mr. Nesbitt:: Just like in "1984".


Gordon Minto Churchill: In the time that I have been in the house, from 1951 to the present
February 27. 1968

Motion Respecting House Vote time, there have been three major assaults on the rights of parliament. This is the third one and the worst. The first assault on the rights of parliament was made in 1955 in the defence production debate, to which reference has been made on several occasions, when Right Hon. C. D. Howe wanted the house to give him complete, unlimited and perpetual powers under that very important act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The present minister was his deputy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Conservative opposition resisted that attempt. We said, "This is not right". We trusted Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who was an honourable gentleman and a very capable minister. But we said, "What about those who may succeed you in the future?" Having seen those who have succeeded him, I say, thank God we took that stand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: People say to me "That debate was in the past; it did not count". It counted. We fought that issue for 11 days. We debated the rights of parliament. Some of my good friends in the press gallery said "You will never get that principle over to the people of Canada". The people of Canada are much smarter than some members of the press gallery at that time gave them credit for. The issue became clear to the people of Canada. No one said to us at that time "The vote is a foregone conclusion". It never occurred to us that it might be. There were 51 Conservative members on this side of the house and 170 Liberals. They overflowed that area. We had the members of the C.C.F. party on this side-a very uncomfortable position for the Conservative party. We debated the issue for 11 days. What happened? Fortunately I made a summary of the events at that time and I refreshed my memory. The debate started lamely; not all of our members wanted to participate. We were scoffed at by various people. Some who heard about this wrote in or 'phoned in and said "You are on the wrong track. Stop it".
Gradually the issue became clear to members in the House of Commons and to the people in the country. When the government found that it was in difficulty, its supporters presented an amendment to us at which we looked very closely and which we found too devious for our taste. The debate continued, and the government showed obstinacy. Finally, prime minister St. Laurent, a respected


statesman of this country, did the honourable thing. He said "This is not right. We will put in a limitation on the defence production act", and the limitation was imposed. On that day he protected the rights of parliament. Suppose we had dismissed that bill and said "It does not matter, we are out-voted before we start". Who would have the authority to do that today in a government which sustains the successive changes in the cabinet which we have seen here in the last five years? Would it be someone like Right Hon. C. D. Howe? On that occasion we protected the rights of parliament.
The second major assault on the rights of parliament was made in 1956 in the great pipe line debate. It did not start off as a debate on a matter in which the freedom of speech would be affected. Other issues were considered. But by the time the debate came to its conclusion, freedom of speech in this house became the main issue for which we fought. Closure was imposed before certain sections of the act were considered, and a bitter battle was fought. During the course of the strife, there were people who said "You must not do this, you must stop. You are destroying parliament. This is not right. End the debate now. You have been at it too long, and the vote is a foregone conclusion", because there were 51 Conservatives, and 23 members of the C.C.F., who were supporting our position and whose position we were supporting, against 170 Liberals. I give full credit to the C.C.F. party for the tremendous battle they put up for freedom of speech, led by my colleague in the House of Commons who is also sometimes my friend in Winnipeg North Centre.
Freedom of speech is important. It is vital to the operation of this institution. Men of experience saw that at the time, and we fought the battle. The Liberal party almost destroyed parliament. They ruthlessly sacrificed the Speaker, and almost destroyed his position in the house. But we retained freedom of speech in this chamber, and without that what have you got?	.
The third major attack on the rights of parliament is occurring in the house now.' The reason I take this so seriously is not only due to my conviction with regard to these matters but also to the experiences that I have had here, and everyone is conditioned by his upbringing and his experience. I saw from the beginning that it would be extremely difficult, that a crisis would arise here and a contest of wills between this side and the
February 27. 1968

other side of the house. I remembered the other debates here and I knew the sacrifices which they involved, because more than one member suffered seriously in health, and I think some premature deaths occurred as a result of that struggle in 1956.
We kept up the struggle. It was not settled in one, two or three days, and we were not alarmed at the thought that the vote was a foregone conclusion. What bothered me so much last week-and I will not go into all the details-is that it was said the people of Canada were informed, that they know everything about it. They made their decision. We are told "Stop the debate. Don't filibuster. Cease speaking".
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
One of the things that has depressed me more in recent years has been the continual attack made on this institution. It is coming now. Friends of ours are saying, "What are you doing in parliament? Why are you talking so much? Why don't you get on with the business? The vote is a foregone conclusion, get it over with". I said over the air tonight on one of these television broadcasts on this subject of attacking parliament, "The only thing I can say to the people who are doing that is, God forgive you, for you know not what you do." I said, too, that in my opinion subversive forces are operating in this country to destroy this parliament. When this parliament is destroyed, your freedom is lost and my freedom is gone. Where else can you have freedom, unless it is in this institution which is the heart, the soul, the centre of the freedom of our country?
Now, people say, you are going to plunge the country into an election. You would think plunging into an election was like jumping into ice cold water. They speak as if this were something terrible. In the United States, they have an election every two years, and perhaps there is some complaint about that. We do not have elections that often. Municipal elections are held every year. Is that wrong, having an election every year? Provincial elections are held every three or four years. About 99 per cent of the voters in this country do not spend more than 15 minutes to one hour during an election campaign to cast their votes. I voted in a provincial election, not the latest one but the one before that. I happened to know the candidate and I respected him. During that election campaign that lasted five weeks, I turned off the radio whenever speeches were made; I did not look at television; I threw the literature into the
Motion Respecting House Vote waste basket as it came to the house; I did not look at the ads in the newspapers; I did not attend a single meeting, and then it took me 15 minutes to walk from my home to the voting place and cast my ballot. I knew the issues and I knew the man and I had confidence in him. I tell you that experience is repeated by millions of people during any general election.
There is no plunging into an election and running scared. I am not advocating an election now. I do not think it is necessary. I believe this issue can be decided in an entirely different way. We are deadlocked here in the house. This motion will do damage to parliament, to our free institutions, unless I am wrong and unless this evidence I have given to you is wrong. Unless most members on this side of the house are wrong, that will be the result.
Now then, what can we do to have the motion withdrawn? You say, we cannot have a filibuster. People will say it is awful and you must not do this talking; get on with the business. We are protecting the freedom of this institution, the rights of parliament and the freedom of our citizens. Our only method is debate in this House of Commons. What are we to do-get placards and go down to 24 Sussex street and say, "Dear Mr. Pearson, please remove this motion"? We are not going to indulge in fisticuffs. We do not want civil strife. The parliament exists for the very purpose of conducting debate in a reasonable fashion under fair rules. In my experience, if debate seizes upon the main issue you get clearly defined thoughts and at some stage something has to happen. During the defence production debate something happened. The statesman, Mr. St. Laurent, solved that problem.
The great conciliator, the world statesman, the man who can negotiate at the United Nations, in the commonwealth with any known nation and reach a settlement, will not negotiate with Canadian citizens. The hero abroad has become the tyrant at home. Outside the country he uses the methods of conciliation; but here the bulldozer, to ride roughshod over his fellow citizens and destroy this institution. Does this Prime Minister of ours want to go down in history as the only Prime Minister in Canada to strike at the roots of this institution? There are millions of people who would like to honour him in his role as world statesman, but what are they to think now?
7068	COMMONS
Motion Respecting House Vote
I say to you, sir, we do not have to plunge into an election. The Prime Minister of this country could adopt his role of diplomat. He could talk to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). These two men are officers of this House of Commons. In their custody, along with that of Mr. Speaker, rests the traditions and customs of this institution. Why cannot some compromise be worked out? I would not care if we were establishing another precedent. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be able to get that straightened out for us, and I speak these words kindly.
I would not mind if Prime Minister Pearson continued in office for the next five weeks. After all, he has had 50 years of service to his country. I would say to him, drop the motion and save parliament, save our freedom. In return, we will stop the debate. We will let you carry on for the next five weeks. We will finish up the essential business, supplementary estimates and interim supply certainly by the middle of March. Then, we could prorogue or adjourn, have the Liberal convention, select a new leader and the Prime Minister could retire with honour. Then, let the new leader come back here, open the house, perhaps bring in a budget to correct the financial and economic conditions of this country. I appeal to the Prime Minister. I appeal to the Liberal party. The Liberal party has a long and honourable history. What party fought for responsible government, for free speech, for representation by population-the Liberal party. This is the party that represented freedom in the nineteenth century. It was not a party of expediency and a party of power, as it is now. I appeal to the Liberal party to do for this parliament and for this country what their forefathers did for Canada in the nineteenth century. That is the issue as I see it. I say this can be done, and it can be done by negotiation without the country being forced into a vote, or saddling us with a precedent which will sap the vitality of this institution. That, sir, is the case as I see it.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.) fTranslation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, circumstances have made it necessary to postpone the business of the house for a few days due to application of rules and procedures which should be amended. The Canadian people want more than sterile debates between politicians who seem to seek the best opportunity to consolidate the

DEBATES	February 27, 1968
future of their party instead of the country's. It is to be hoped, at least, that the precedent which will undoubtedly be created will have satisfactory results in the orientation of the procedural changes which are necessary.
We are now witnessing a debate brought about by a lack of observation on the part of the Liberal team, which does not seem to realize that the Canadian citizens are already burdened by various taxes which lead the wiliest of them to use various means to get around the existing regulations.
The present circumstances allow me to add that the corrupt financial system tolerated by our politicians and to which they adapt themselves has greatly contributed to incite citizens to find means of avoiding, as much as they can, the heavy taxes overburdening them.
Our tax-happy politicians are largely responsible for this state of affairs as far as a sense of responsibility, honesty and integrity in relationship among individuals is concerned. The taxing system contributed-I repeat-to bring citizens to use their imagination in order to find means of keeping their earnings, either by falsifying their income tax return, or by devising various statements which, in their opinion, could somewhat lessen the pressure brought to bear by tax-happy people of all kinds.
Everywhere one feels the pressure exerted by those who seem to take particular care to protect the system which established this way of thinking according to which taxation exists since the world was created, and the partisans of this group are already inclined to believe they are immortal. That probably explains in part the absence of a great many members in the house on February 19, 1968, and the provocative attitude of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), docile follower of the system, who seemed anxious to register his vote in favour of the clique of financiers who force him to empty the pockets of the Canadian people by all sorts of tricks, in order to maintain his reputation as a great treasurer. Unfortunately for him and for the big-wigs of finance, on the evening of February 19, it happened that the majority of the representatives of the people present in the house thought of the workers and the taxpayers, who are generally not too well off and who can no longer stand these constant drains on their pockets. This is what brought about a vote against the passing of Bill No. C-193.
This is a triumph over the dictatorship of high finance, which too often has had the
February 27, 1968
upper hand, and all Canadians should be proud of such a feat. Unfortunately, this is not what is happening. Now a good many members of the team which brought off this feat of strength, no doubt in the heat of victory, seem to be struck down with electoral hysteria and are demanding that an election be called. Having succeeded in saving Canadian taxpayers a few million dollars, they would impose on them over a billion dollars in expenses. The partisan spirit, which had been lying low for some time, after two or three consecutive general elections which have worsened things instead of improving them, is suddenly revived and there is a danger of losing the benefits of our victory in a decision that owes more to love of party than love of country. They would have a general election which would force Canadians to take part against their will in the politicians' game: discussions, lies, attacks, contradictions, promises, denigration, demagoguery and all that an election campaign entails. We have seen, in the past, what some politicians are capable of when they want to accede to power.
If the majority of those politicians who are eager for elections had at least some sense of sportsmanship, they would admit that the
Motion Respecting House Vote opponent must be allowed to get up after having been momentarily disabled. I do not have too much sympathy either for the team that is too readily upset.
The members of the Ralliement Creditiste never forget the many blows below the belt struck by certain members of their team, who do not always respect the rules of honesty which should exist during elections as well as at any other times. Still, vengeance is never a good adviser, and I feel that any human being who is conscious of his duties-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Ten o'clock.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is ten o'clock?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that if there was agreement we might carry on for a further period.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously there is not agreement. It being ten o'clock this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


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


Wednesday, February 28, 1968