Mr. MacEachen:

Mr. Speaker, I understand the obligation which normally rests upon the leader of the House when an event of this kind occurs, that is, to move a motion to have the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) suspended from the service of the House.

In this particular case, because we are under a time limit for the debate on Bill C-42, I propose to defer moving a motion until the debate has been concluded; I will possibly move it tomorrow if, in the meantime, the hon. member for Leeds does not reconcile himself to the requirements of the rules.

I want to make it perfectly clear that in the circumstances it would be most unfair, for example, to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), who is prepared to speak, if we were now to embark upon a motion-the bells could ring all afternoon-which would effectively close off the time remaining in this limited debate. Thus I intend to let the matter rest with the assurance that if in the meantime there are no further developments I will certainly support Your Honour's decision by making a motion at the appropriate time.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):

Mr. Speaker, in my view, the position is clear. If the government House leader feels it is his duty in the circumstances to move a motion, the matter cannot by its nature be allowed to rest. I am concerned that what we have here is only a subterfuge whereby members opposite are prepared to allow the Chair, in their judgment, to suffer under a disability for 24 hours. This matter is debatable. It is important. I think Your Honour will find in the book you are researching now that action must be taken immediately. The government House leader has a responsibility to take action at once. The motion is put and the government House leader has to specify an appropriate length of time in accordance with his judgment. Then the House has an opportunity to debate the issue. We can comment on the length of time.

It is not proper for this matter to be allowed to rest. After all, it is not simply a question of the convenience of the House leader; it affects the House of Commons as a whole. My hon. friend has the right to have this matter adjudicated with respect to his conduct and I do not feel it is proper for any reason or in any circumstances that the issue be allowed to lie over 24 hours or for any other period of time.

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, the few words I wish to utter are along the lines of those just spoken by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), except that there is another thought to which I should like to give expression.

First, I would point out that you yourself, speaking from the chair, said the House cannot continue until this matter had been resolved. I believe that is a position from which Your Honour cannot retreat. What happens when a member refuses to obey the Chair is that parliament is brought to a standstill, and I do not see how we can let the matter lie over until tomorrow. Someone has borrowed my fifth edition of Beau-chesne. I prefer to quote from it in tribute to those who

Points of Order

produced it, but I still have at my desk the fourth edition. On page 118 the words are quite clear:

In case the offending member does not explain and persists in remaining in the House, a motion shall forthwith be made, preferably by the leader of the House, "that Mr.. .. member for ... be suspended for ... days from the service of the House."

The key word is "forthwith" and it seems to me, therefore, that regardless of all the good reasons the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) may have for suggesting that the matter lie over until tomorrow, that is not possible.

The other thought I should like to express I address directly to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). He can believe anything he wants. He can continue to think anything he wants. But as a member of the House of Commons I suggest that he has a duty to this House to see to it that it operates according to its rules and procedures.

I appeal to the hon. member, as a member of the opposition and as one who, like him, is often offended by what we get from the other side of the House, to respect the request that I now make to him, and which Your Honour had to make under the rules, to offer, even now, to withdraw the offending words. He can think anything he wants, but in terms of the record as an older member of this House I make my appeal to him that he respect its procedures.

Mr. Speaker:

I think the situation has been well summarized. The use of the words in an allegation by one member that another member of the House-any member of the House-had deliberately misled the House is clearly unparliamentary and clearly out of order. Even if there were any doubt about that-and there certainly is not in my mind-there cannot be any doubt about the request of the presiding officer, the Speaker, at any time to require the withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression once the Speaker has so found. At that point if there was any doubt about there being disorder in the use of the expression itself, there certainly can no longer be any doubt about disorder existing when any member of the House refuses to obey the clear directive of the Chair.

It seems to me that on two counts we have severe disorder in the House, and the matter has to be resolved. It has to be dealt with now, and I do not think there is any basis upon which we can do it as a matter of convenience. I respect as well what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) is saying to the House, that it is not by directive of the Chair that he act. He acts at all times and in all circumstances, as any member of the House of Commons, upon his own initiative, and in expressing his position to the House he was making a declaration of his intentions.

However, whatever is to be the resolution of this-perhaps the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), in response to the intervention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will make his case crystal clear-it is not a question of the Chair controlling what a member feels or thinks. It is only the manner in which he expresses it which has to be observed in order to safeguard the proprieties of the

Points of Order

House, and that must be done at all times. Therefore, it is only the manner of the expression that the hon. member for Leeds is asked to withdraw; but in the face of his refusal to do that, I think we have to clear the matter up in whatever way it is going to be cleared up, and it has to be done now.

Mr. MacEachen:

Mr. Speaker, I took the course I took for the reasons I mentioned, one being that we are under a very restricted time limit on this particular bill and, second, that possibly a cooling off period should be permitted so that the hon. member for Leeds could reconsider his position and remove from me and other members of the House the duty of taking on what at best is a very unpleasant responsibility, namely, putting a motion to have an hon. member suspended from the service of the House. I should add that, as you have underlined, Mr. Speaker, the decision whether a motion be put is that of the leader of the House in these particular circumstances. I recollect that on one occasion the Speaker of the House did name an hon. member, and no motion was forthcoming from any member asking that the offending member be suspended from the service of the House. That is my recollection.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

When was that?

Mr. MacEachen:

I cannot give the right hon. member the precise date, but I will do some research and assist him later.

The action I am asked to take on this occasion stems from the respect which must be shown to the presiding officer of the House if our business is to be conducted with decorum and, particularly, with the respect of the Canadian people. Today, probably for the first time in the history of this parliament, the Canadian people are witnessing the presiding officer asking an hon. member to withdraw an offensive expression, and it seems to me that it is very important that the Canadian people-

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

It has happened before.

Mr. MacEachen:

Not on television. I am saying that this is the first time the Canadian people will have an opportunity to witness what occurs in the House of Commons when the Speaker requests an hon. member to withdraw an offensive remark.

Mr. Lang:

And he refuses.

Mr. MacEachen:

The hon. member has refused.

Mr. Cossitt:

Why is the truth offensive?

Mr. MacEachen:

Three times Your Honour has asked the hon. member to withdraw. We all know that the remarks he has made are offensive. They are unparliamentary, and they cannot be accepted by anyone who respects the rules and procedures of this House. It is no wonder that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, with his experience and his respect for parliament, has asked the hon. member for Leeds to withdraw and to save us from this difficulty. It is no wonder that I have delayed putting a motion to save the House

from this difficulty, and I can only deplore the fact that when he rose to speak the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did not join both of us in asking the hon. member for Leeds to withdraw.

I therefore move:

That Mr. Cossitt, the member for Leeds, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of today's sitting.

Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):

Mr. Speaker-

The motion is not debatable.

Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the motion is not debatable, but it is interesting that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was allowed to debate the motion.

Mr. MacEachen:

The motion was not put then.

Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):

By reversing the procedure it is very interesting that the Deputy Prime Minister was allowed to debate the motion, but that the House is not.

Mr. MacEachen:

You spoke.