I do not wish to take the time of the House by enumerating the many sections. Correct expression in each would require not merely a knowledge of English, not merely a mastery of punctuation, not merely appropriateness inform; it would require very much more detailed knowledge of the history and economics of this country, which I venture to think will not be served by your hurrying through the Constitution in the manner which seems to be fashionable and favoured by the majority today. In so doing, I do not think that the majority is serving the interests of the country, if they desire to curtail liberties of speech, if they desire to make rules or amend rules, which will diminish the opportunities we have of placing our views, our outlook, our angle of approach, before this House. Very often, Sir, when we draft amendments in the seclusion of our study, we have only one brain to go by. We come here and see the light of our fellows. When we come here and find other expressions, other angles of approach, are properly backed by facts or reason. I for my part, am quite prepared to say, I would have no hesitation, no shame in revising my own judgment, and accepting the wiser judgment of others. But that cannot be done if that judgment is placed before us without reason, and if it is not illustrated with some facts. If you shut out the means of approach, if you shut out, Sir, the very door of discussion, if you put amendments which are tabled here “without discussion” to vote, you will deny the most elementary right of freedom to speech to Members. But that would mean that you are backed by the brute majority behind you, and not the reasoning intelligentsia of the country with you.
