April 1, 1932

CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE

IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring a question of privilege of the whole house to its attention. At the close of last night's sitting the Prims Minister, having .mentioned that he would apply closure to the matter under discussion, made this declaration:

If this business is concluded some time after two o'clock, we shall then proceed with government orders and supplementary estimates.

The point I desire to raise, and I think it is of importance for future debate, is that the house has no right under the present rule to take up anything after the closure has been applied to any measure under discussion up to two o'clock. I take first standing order 39 under which closure is applied. I will not read the whole of it, but simply the concluding part:

And if such adjourned debate or postponed consideration shall not have been resumed or concluded before two of the clock in the morning, no member shall rise to speak after that hour, but all such questions as must be decided in order to conclude-

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I cannot understand the hon. member's question of privilege. He is talking of the application of the rules of the house. At the present moment no rules are being applied except the ordinary rules of procedure.

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

Mr. Speaker, with a view to helping the house in future-

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Oh, no.

1606 COMMONS

Agriculture Committee-Third Report

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

Quite so. My contention is that by disregarding this rule last Tuesday the privileges of the house were broken.

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

That was the time to

discuss it; the breach cannot be amended now. What is done is done. Even supposing the hon. member's point of order is well taken referring to former procedure it cannot ibe remedied now, and this is not the time to discuss it.

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

But upon the declaration made by the Prime Minister last night may I not raise the question of privilege?

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is not a question of privilege at all. If at a later date any member undertakes to do something in violation of the rules of the house it is time enough then to bring up the question. It cannot be anticipated. The notice of motion for closure was not while the house was in session, but while in committee.

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for my guidance, if after closure has been decided upon the point can be raised?

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

It cannot be raised

academically.

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
IND

Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa

Independent

Mr. BOURASSA:

I mean after the vote is taken under the closure rule and as a matter of procedure, can the point be raised that he house cannot proceed with other business?

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

When the house proceeds to such business, if the hon. member thinks it is not within the rules of the house, he can raise the question.

Topic:   CLOSURE-PRIVILEGE
Permalink
IND

AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand) presented the third and fourth reports of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization as follows:


THIRD REPORT-BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY


Your committee has had under consideration an order of reference dated Wednesday, February 24, 1932, namely: "Resolved: that all questions affecting the beet sugar industry in Canada be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture with instructions to inquire into the action which may be taken by the government, by way of customs duties, subsidies, bonuses or otherwise, either in or without cooperation with the provincial governments for promoting the prosperity of the said industry and developing the production of Canadian grown sugar, and report to this house. Attest. Arthur Beauchesne, Clerk of the House." [Mr. Bourassa.l Your committee has called and examined the following witnesses:- H. Marshall-Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, Ontario. Dr. F. W. Grindley-Bureau of Statistics, Ottawa, Ontario. W. R. Reek-Director of Experimental Farm, Ridgetown, Ontario. Thos. Simpson-Farmer, Petrolia, Ontario. G. L. Rogers-President, British Columbia Sugar Refining Company, Vancouver. B. R. McMullen-Beet Growers' Association, Alberta. Chas. Houston-President, Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited, Chatham, Ontario. Alex W. McIntyre-Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited, Chatham, Ontario. W. F. Russell-Alberta Beet Growers' Association. * The evidence submitted established the following facts regarding the industry: I. That the production of sugar beets has been carried on very profitably in certain districts of Ontario and Alberta: that the area under cultivation has increased from 25,000 acres in 1921 with a yield of 200,000 tons to 42,000 acres in 1931, with a yield of approximately 435,000 tons, and that the production of refined beet sugar has increased from 53,000,000 pounds in 1921 to approximately 100,000,000 pounds in 1931. The amount paid to the farmers for beets in 1931 was about two and one-half millions of dollars; during the period of normal commodity prices for farm products, an average price of $7.48 per ton was paid to the farmers for sugar beets, but owing to the present low price of raw cane and refined sugar, the factories claim that they are unable to guarantee more than $5 per ton for the 1932 crop. 2. That large additional areas, suitable for the growth of sugar beets, are available in Canada. 3. That there are five firms engaged in the refining of sugar in Canada-The Canada and Dominion Sugar Company Limited, producing cane sugar at their Montreal factory, and beet sugar at Chatham and Wallaceburg, Ontario; the British Columbia Sugar Refinery, producing cane sugar at Vancouver, B.C., and beet sugar at Raymond, Alberta; The Ai'eadia Sugar Refinery Company, Limited, Dartmouth, N.S.: The Atlantic Sugar Refinery, Limited, St. John, N.B.; St. Lawrence Sugar Refinery, Limited, Montreal, P.Q. The last three have engaged exclusively in the manufacture of cane sugar. 4. That during the past ten years the annual average production of refined sugar in Canada was 963 millions of pounds; the percentage of beet sugar production has varied from 6-2 per cent in 1926 to aproximately ten per cent in 1930 and 1931. 5. That the sugar beet factories at Chatham, Wallaceburg and Raymond, are now operating at full capacity, and that no further development of the beet sugar industry in Canada is possible until manufacturing capacity is increased. 6. That world stocks of sugar on hand are very large and that an estimated surplus of some four millions of tons urill be carried over to next year. Maturing Obligations 7. That there is sufficient capacity in the cane sugar refineries of Canada to refine two and one-half times the amount of sugar necessary to meet the demands of the Canadian consumers. 8. That the consumption of sugar in the area from Winnipeg to British Columbia is approximately 225,000,000 pounds supplied from eastern Canada as far westward as the Brandon district, and from Vancouver, eastward to the Brandon district, except for the tnirty million pounds of beet sugar manufactured at Raymond, Alberta. 9. That freight rates on sugar from Raymond, Alberta, to prairie points are from one-half to three-quarters of a cent per pound less than rates to similar points from Vancouver or Montreal. 10. That the granting of bonuses or subsidies at present to encourage the production of sugar from beets, was not favoured by the representatives of the growers or of the refiners. Your committee therefore recommend that in view of the existing tariff on sugar and in consideration of the substantial payments being made to agriculture and labour by the beet sugar factories at present in operation, the cane sugar refineries should undertake to provide for a gradual increase in factory facilities for the refining of beet sugar in Canada, and that, with the additional advantages in freight rates to points in the middle west, heretofore described, factory facilities should now be steadily increased in western areas where beets are grown, and thereby make it possible to produce from beets a more substantial percentage of the sugar consumption of Canada. Your committee further recommends that if no successful attempt be made in the immediate future by the refineries to increase the facilities for the manufacture of beet sugar, the government should take into consideration steps to accomplish that end.


FOURTH REPORT-GRADING GARNET WHEAT


Your committee has had under consideration an order of reference dated Tuesday, March 15, 1932, namely: "Resolved: that the report of the committee on grain standards for the crop year 1931-32, in so far as it relates to Garnet wheat, be referred to the select standing committee on agriculture with instructions that the whole subject be inquired into carefully and that the said committee shall have power to call for witnesses, papers and documents and to report to the house its findings. Attest. Arthur Beauehesne, Clerk of the House." Your committee, in view of the fact that seeding operations will become general throughout western Canada before your committee shall have sufficient opportunity to inquire into and report to the house on the abovementioned order of reference; and in view of the fact that the manner of grading Garnet wheat may vitally affect the acreage sown, recommends that any change in the system of grading Garnet wheat shall not become effective during the present crop year. Mr. SENN moved that the fourth report be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


April 1, 1932