Yes; we voted both ways. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce first introduced his motion for closure at the resolution stage, we thought he was premature. We thought further time should be given to discussion of the resolution and we voted against closure; and maybe we would still vote against it if those who have spoken in the opposition had advanced arguments one after another against the pipe line. That is not what they have done. We sat here until almost five o'clock one morning, and what was it that took up the time of the house then from one o'clock until five? Did they discuss anything but points of order in order to delay progress on this bill?
-bells rang and the Speaker would rise and say, "may I conclude that members have already been called in?" "No, you must not do that" they said; and the bells would ring again. We would sit down, and we waited until five o'clock in the morning. What was it all for? It was delaying tactics; school-boy stuff.
We said right away, Mr. Chairman, if that is what we are going to experience when we vote against closure, then we are not going to vote against closure any more; that is the reason we have followed the government in voting for closure since that time.
So we hear it outside from the communists parading this afternoon. I say those who oppose this bill are following the communist line. I may say that this document is signed by Tim Buck, national leader; Stewart Smith, for the Ontario committee; Gui Caron, for the Quebec committee, of the labour progressive party.
Talking of elections, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what would happen if the Prime Minister should rise in his place some time and accept the challenge of the Conservative party to call an election?