Editorial

JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES REVUE D'ETUDES CANADIENNES Editor Associate Editor Editorial Assistant DENIS SMITH BERNARD R. BLISHEN ANITA NEVILLE Redacteur Redacteur adjoint Assistante Editorial Board MAURICE J. BOOTE ROBERT D. CHAMBERS LEON DION KENNETH E. KIDD comite de redaction W. L. MORTON T. H. B. SYMONS Advisory Board ANTHONY ADAMSON CLAUDE T. BISSELL DONALD G. CREIGHTON KATHLEEN FENWICK DAVID M. HAYNE JOHN HIRSCH JEAN PALARDY CLAUDE RYAN Comite consultatif B. D. SANDWELL RONALD J. THOM Editorial Among the proposals for changes in the rules of the House of Commons presented to the House early in December, most of which have been accepted by the spokesmen of all parties in the House as admirable measures for rationalizing the House's proceedings, one change in particular has aroused strong dissent. This is the proposal for time allocation contained in the draft of Standing Order 16A. This rule would provide for a Proceedings Committee chaired by the government House leader and composed of one representative of every other party in the House. Arrangements for the allocation of time on any items of business before the House which gain the unanimous approval of the Proceedings Committee would be confirmed by resolutions of the House voted without debate; such a proJournal of Canadian Studies vision for the agreed limitation of debate has long been desirable in the Canadian House, and is recognized to be necessary by the representatives of all parties. But what sticks in the craw is the further provision for the establishment of fixed timetables in advance for controversial measures upon which the parties cannot reach agreement in the Proceedings Committee. Given disagreement on the timetable, the government majority may force its own timetable upon the House before debate has begun by a simple majority vote after only a two-hour debate. The opposition is right to object to this proposal , and to resist its adoption. The point of objection is the same as the crucial objection to the use of closure in 1956 on the pipeline bill: that debate should not be limited in advance on major measures which the opposition believes are of doubtful value or of dubious popular appeal or 1 which involve deep division of opinion and feeling in the country. The opposition in the House has a duty to represent and to lead public dissent on some government measures, but frequently it cannot know for certain how deeply felt the public opposition to a measure may be until debate in the House has begun to stimulate the public interest. The opposition should be granted the opportunity as a matter of course under the rules to arouse public opinion through parliamentary debate on legislation, or to discover that opinion has been aroused. This opportunity requires that debate on controversial measures should remain, for a certain length of time, openended . After a reasonable period of debate, the government is free under the present rules to impose closure; it should be satisfied with this weapon, and should use it more regularly; but it should not create the temptation for itself to limit or suppress debate in the House before discussion has begun. 2 Reassurances and promises of self-restraint, like those already given in the House by members of the government, are insufficient protection for the opposition. The Liberal government is probably no more inclined to abuse the opposition's rights than any other government would be_. Butthe proposed rule, once adopted, would be a convenience for any party in power seeking to avoid the opposition's harassment while achieving its legislative program with expedition . Parliamentary government involves a tense equilibrium between the efficient achievement of a government's program and the maintenance of the opposition's right to oppose that program; Standing Order 16A goes too far toward upsetting that equilibrium. By the time this issue of the Journal appears, we hope that the government may have conceded the point to the opposition with good grace and referred the proposal back to the Special Committee on Procedure for reconsideration. D.S. Revue d'etudes canadiennes ...