Mr. FORKE:

I meant no insinuation whatever. There may be a very good reason for a rule of this kind and I can well understand the arguments of the right hon. leader of the opposition. At the same time it seems to me that the resolution deals with so many different phases of the subject, there is so much ground covered, there are so many different incidents which have to be considered in drafting the necessary legislation, that it would be impossible to give any definite information on the subject until the whole bill is brought down; and therefore it seems to me we are simply wasting time in this discussion. I think all of us have a pretty general idea as to the intent of this proposed legislation and my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) will get the information he seeks if he is just a little patient.

Mr. BAXTER:

I can quite appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon (Mf. Forke), but he must remember that the position he occupies gives him peculiar facilities for knowing in advance the purposes of the government, which are not possessed by

193i -

members of the group to which I belong. If, of course, we were disposed to accept everything proposed by the other side of the House in the same gentle way that the hon. leader of the Progressives accepts it, we might expect, perhaps, to have sudden and violent division in our own ranks, with a departure of some gentlemen from positions of importance.

Referring to the point of order, my own view is that the rule is rather a burden upon public business; as far as I am concerned, I would rather the rule did not exist. There are some legislatures in Canada that do not resort to it at all. But there ought to be-not for the information of the House, but for the information of the country-distinct notice in advance, so as to permit the country to be apprised of important changes in legislation on any subject that interests a considerable number of the people. That, I take it, was the original object of the rule, and while we have the rule it surely ought to be observed. For my part, I would gladly vote for the repeal of the rule and the substitution of a system which would provide that a bill should be introduced and remain on the table for a certain number of days before any discussion could take place. I think that would save the time of the House and dispense with a lot of unnecessary printing. But the position we are in to-day is that we are a^ked to pass a resolution which conveys absolutely no meaning. It is not within the spirit of the rule. at all events. We are asked to pass that resolution because a minister of the crown has handed over to some other gentleman-and quite properly-the duty of preparing the resolution, though that gentleman has prepared a resolution that is utterly inadequate and out of line with the spirit of the rules. If every time a blunder is made we are asked to accept it we will soon have an end of ail rules; and I do not see how the members of this House can very long be expected to conform with alacrity either with the spirit or the letter of the remaining rules of the House, if any one of them is to be put out of service in this somewhat summary fashion, My hon. friend the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke), with his easy channel of communication-which reminds one of the subway from the Central station to the Chateau Laurier, an easy and convenient mode of communication-knows, of course, what the words "transportation of grain" in this resolution refer to. I have not that advantage, not having the same intimate relations with members of the government to

Canada Grain Act

enable me to get the information in this way. If I were a Progressive-

Mr. GOULD:

You will never be.

Mr. BAXTER:

No, thank God! I hope I never will be quite such a spineless political animal; but I hope to be progressive in a real sense, and not progressing along, drawn by a string after a wagon driven by somebody else; that is not my idea of progress or pro-gressive'ness. If my hon. friend had not his intimate means of knowledge, and happened to see the phrase "transportation of grain," it might possibly occur to him that under those words there could be concealed an attack upon that charter of liberty so dear to him, the Crowsnest pass agreement. I do not suppose it is being attacked by this [DOT]bill; but under that language, after a resolution of this charter had been accepted, it would be perfectly proper for the government to deal with the transportation of grain as affected by that particular agreement. Of course my hon. friends know they are in no such danger. If they thought they were, the chief support of the government would be withdrawn at once. They know they are safe, but a day may come when the Tories, whom they do not trust, will be in power in this House,-the day is not so far distant-and I would venture to say that their attitude towards language of this character would Immediately assume a degree of suspicion that is entirely absent to-day. We would have none of this complacency.

You have given your ruling, Mr. Chairman, in good faith, but I appeal to you to consider that the important matter involved in that ruling is the utter destruction of anything that the rules stand for.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The bill which is preceded by this resolution will contain from 275 to 300 clauses.

Mr. STEVENS:

Not new sections?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

No, not new sections,

but the bill has to be preceded by the resolution just the same for the old sections as well as for the new ones. Nobody claims or will claim that a resolution preceding such a bill should recite what is contained in those 300 sections.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Nobody said so.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

No, nobody said so, but it is the spirit of the objection which has been raised. What is the rule? The rule simply requires the House to go into committee to consider a general proposition setting forth the expediency of bringing in a measure on

a particular question. The resolution sets forth the general proposition that it is expedient to consolidate and amend the Grain Act, and states that amendments will be moved purporting to deal with certain phrases which are all mentioned in the resolution, I have been in this House for a great number of years and I venture to say that this resolution is practically the same as all resolutions preceding such bills, and the Law Clerk of the House, who has drafted this resolution has done so according to the practice as he has drafted all other resolutions of such a nature. Surely my hon. friends are ill-advised in singling out the Canada Grain Act for the purpose of setting forth such an objection as they have made.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I do not know what 'the hon. minister is talking about when he makes such an assertion.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

What assertion?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

That the law clerk has

drafted this resolution in the same form as all others.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

When dealing with bills of this nature.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Not at all.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I can find many of

them.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I will find some of them right now on the order paper.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

You will find others in the same position.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Let the minister look

at resolution No. 14, and every resolution that is on the order paper. I never saw one like this, and if there were one it should have been bbjected to. Look at No. 15, No. 6 and No. 7. I have read them all.

Mr. VIEN:

They do not refer to a consolidation.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

No certainly not, but

what difference does that make? Look at No. 23.