Mr. Chair, I was listening with interest to what Mr. Genuis was saying, and I think the key part of his speech centres on the word “rules”. It's very important for all members of this committee, and indeed all parliamentarians, to sometimes take what was done in our past, in our history, and use it as a guide and a road map. What I want to do is draw this committee's attention to what has been said about the rules. Mr. Genuis might be particularly interested in this.
Back on March 21, 1957, Stanley Howard Knowles gave an address to the Empire Club. Of course, Mr. Knowles was very well known, but he was introduced at the time before he delivered his speech as “one of the colourful figures whose skill in opposition is of inestimable value to the parliamentary life of this country.... As Chief Whip of CCF since 1944, he enjoys a length and breadth of parliamentary experience seldom equalled, and as he has always been in opposition to the government of the day, he is rarely qualified to talk to us on 'The Role of the Opposition in Parliament'."
Mr. Chair, I just want to fast-forward to a part of his speech that has a particular significance here, which is as follows:
It must be recognized that it is the opposition's right, indeed it is its duty, whenever it feels strongly about any matter of public policy, whether it be something the government is proposing or concern over something the government is failing to propose, to criticize and attack the government for all it is worth. It should be recognized that it is the opposition's right to keep parliament in session months on end, if in doing what its members believe to be their duty it chooses to do so.
He goes on to say:
It is the opposition's right to insist at all times on the full protection of the rules of debate. The government is entitled to that same protection, but in addition it has its majority with which to establish its will. The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the greater importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules. Only by according such rights to the opposition is it possible to achieve anything even approaching equality of strength between the two sides, and I suggest that unless we approach equality of strength--there cannot be absolute equality for in the end the majority must prevail, hence I say unless we approach equality of strength--between those who support and those who oppose the government of the day, there will not be that cut and thrust, that "attack, defence and counter-attack" which, as Sir Lyman Duff put it, are "the breath of life" of our parliamentary institutions.
Mr. Chair, no wiser words have been spoken. He emphasized exactly how important these rules are, and our Liberal colleagues need to understand this is why we're going to the wall on this. There is no retreat on this side of the House, and the exit ramps are all on the government side. They have to decide if this committee is going to be stuck in the mud for the foreseeable future—the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, arguably one of the most important committees our Parliament has.
We're backed into a corner. We must fight for these rules. We fight not only for ourselves, but we fight also for government members who may one day be in opposition.
Mr. Chair, I just want to bring my honourable colleague's attention to those particular comments. In light of where he was going in his discussion about the rules, he can use history as a great road map going forward.
Thank you.