February 10, 1926

LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

The effect has been so infinitesimal that even with the aid of powerful X-rays the dairymen have not been able to discover it yet.

Mr. ME.IGHEN: It killed the condensed

milk trade with France.

Mr. MOTHERWElLL: That is too bad.

Coming to the amendment of the hon. member for South Oxford, am I right in assuming that the hon. member is attacking the Australian treaty?

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

My hon. friend has asked a question. An order in council was put through, I think, in September, 190.5, extending to New Zealand the same privileges as were extended to Australia. Consequently, the amendment embodies New Zealand, Australia and France. Those are three which I had in mind.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

We will get down to what it means, but how is the man in the country to secure the proper interpretation of it? The remedial legislation spoken of in the last few lines of the amendment must, I presume, be in the nature of either amending or abrogating the treaty. The only way that I know of by which we can effect remedial legislation is to do one or other of these two things. In the Speech from the Throne my hon. friend expects this to appear. The preparation of the Speech from the Throne was begun in anticipation of parliament meeting on the 10th December. That means that the

original drafting was started in November. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) apparently expects this government, to enter seriously into a treaty with a sister dominion and then, after having consummated that treaty, and after it has been two months in operation, to incorporate into the Speech from the Throne an undertaking to abrogate or at least to amend that treaty. Is that what my hon. friend wants?

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford) :

These objections could not apply to the order ,m council which was passed extending to New Zealand the same privileges that are embodied in the Australian treaty. New Zealand is the country from which we are receiving goods in large quantities as mentioned by me.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

There would have

been no need of an order in council if the .Australian treaty had not been passed. We come back to the one inescapable conclusion, and that is that the Australian treaty was what my hon. friend meant and had in mind.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

Very well. Now

are we to be held up indefinitely merely because a certain order in council was passed? It amounts to obstruction and nothing else, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Horatio Clarence Hocken

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HOCKEN:

Does the hon. member

.regard six weeks' adjournment as facilitating the business of the House?

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

The six weeks are

gradually dwindling and we are only putting in the time.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

It is as appropriate an answer as can be given to the question my hon. friend has asked.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

I

rise to a point of order. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has stated that the amendment I moved was an obstruction pure and simple. I consider that statement absolutely out of order and I would ask him to withdraw it.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I take it back. Perhaps I may put it this way, that my hon. friend's purpose was to facilitate the passing of the Speech from the Throne.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

Donald Sutherland

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

There is a point of order before the House..

The Address-Mr. Motherwell

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I take it back. It

must be one thing or the other; if the amendment does not constitute an obstruction it must be intended to facilitate the business of the House. If, however, there is an intermediary category in which I can classify the amendment I am willing to put it there. So far we have repulsed these various attacks-

I designate them attacks although I do not know whether some of them are worthy of that description.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. Lest there be

some misapprehension about the point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland),

I will cite Bourinot at page 365:

The terms "blocking" or "obstruction" have been ruled not out of order.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. Please do not

applaud the rulings of the Speaker. The minister has of course withdrawn the expression, but it is just as well that the House should be clear on the point. The word complained of has been used frequently, and personally I was in some doubt as to its admissibility.

I have looked up Bourinot and, as I have just quoted, he states that in England and in Canada the terms blocking and obstruction are considered not out of order.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

My hon. friend

may choose whichever alternative he prefers.

Topic:   EDITION
Permalink
CON

February 10, 1926