March 10, 1933

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

They are a

law unto themselves.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB

James Malcolm

Liberal

Mr. MALCOLM:

Can these trustees tell

what conditions will be facing the world in the next twelve months? Certainly the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance would be very glad to know what those conditions will be, but there is one tiling that we do know, and that is that there are going to be some very radical changes in the financial structure of North America in the next twelve months; and if there is in the United States that inflation of currency which has been predicted, then the load of the national railways in meeting its obligations in New York will be materially lightened. The whole structure may change. I am not without hope for the man who has obligations. Inflation of American currency to the extent of twenty-five per cent would make a very great difference in the problem of the Canadian National Railways in paying its commitments to New York bondholders.

One aspect of this dictatorship which I do not like. The autocratic control given to one man in this board is to me repulsive.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman has

spoken for forty minutes.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before the debate proceeds further I will deal with the amendment. Mr. Manion, seconded by Mr. Stevens, moves:

That Bill No. 37 (letter A of the Senate) intituled: "An Act Respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for cooperation with the Canadian Pacific railway system, and for other purposes," be read the second time.

Mr. Mackenzie King moves in amendment thereto:

That all the words after "that" to the end of the question he left out in order to insert the following instead thereof: "the second

reading of this bill be postponed until this house have declared that nothing therein shall be taken to authorize any amalgamation of the Canadian National Railways with the Canadian Pacific company; or to divest parliament of its rights; or to take from the House of Commons its primary duty to control expenditures of public moneys and the taxes required to meet the same; and that the provisions of said bill shall be read in the light of this declaration, and be construed so as to conform therewith, and that in so far as any of its provisions may be inconsistent therewith they shall be amended accordingly,

and that the adoption of this amendment by this house shall constitute the declaration of its intention and purposes as set forth herein."

There is in our journals one precedent of an amendment moved on the second reading of a bill which proposed that "further consideration of the bill be deferred until the tariff bill has been disposed of." It was a declaration of principle covering not only the second reading but also the third reading and the final adoption of the bill. It was moved as a disapproval of the measure. The present amendment is different inasmuch as it proposes a postponement of the second reading pending a definite declaration of the house. It does not purport to be adverse to the bill but it makes suggestions for adding to its provisions by amendments which can be moved only after the adoption of the second reading. May at page 390 says:

It is competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill to move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.

As this amendment has not the effect of disagreeing with the principle of the bill, it does not come within the class of amendment referred to by May. The allegation that nothing in the bill should be taken to divest parliament of its rights or to take

C.N.R.-C.P.R. Bill-Division

from the house its primary duty to control expenditures is a declaration of general principles which can be moved as a reason for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill dealing with the constitutional rights of parliament, but which is beyond the scope of, and therefore irrelevant to the present bill. May says at page 391 that the principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such proposed resolution. At page 391 May says further:

Such an amendment may not deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee.

The words "nothing therein shall be taken to authorize any amalgamation of the Canadian National Railways with the Canadian Pacific company" anticipates an amendment which may be moved in committee. The proposition that the bill shall be read in the light of certain declarations and be construed in a certain manner and that its provisions shall be amended accordingly is in the nature of an instruction to the committee which cannot be moved as an amendment to the second reading. For these reasons, the amendment is out of order.

I refer the house to May, 13th edition, page 391; Bourinot, page 509 and Redlich, volume III, page 89.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No point of

order has been raised in this matter. Your Honour has taken it upon yourself to give a ruling without any hon. member having an opportunity-

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I raised a point of order.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My right hon. friend did not, he said, he would reserve the question as to whether or not the amendment was out of order. The manner in which Your Honour has now given your ruling precludes us from debating the subject and the only alternative left is to challenge Your Honour's ruling. I respectfully beg, Mr. Speaker, to appeal from your ruling.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
CON

Pierre Édouard Blondin (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

I conceive it to be the

duty of the Speaker to intervene without any objection being taken when he feels that any proceedings before the house are out of order. I have given this amendment very serious consideration. The ruling is that the amendment of Mr. Mackenzie King is out of order, and Mr. Mackenzie King appeals from the said ruling.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB

Charles Murphy

Liberal

Mr. MURPHY:

I was paired with the

hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
CON

Thomas Cantley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CANTLEY:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB

Frederick William Gershaw

Liberal

Mr. GERSHAW:

I was paired with the

hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
CON

Robert Knowlton Smith

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):

I was paired

with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB
CON

Richard Langton Baker

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BAKER:

I was paired with the hon.

member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
CON

Finlay MacDonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):

I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB

Alfred Edgar MacLean

Liberal

Mr. MacLEAN:

I was paired with the

hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink
CON

Leslie Gordon Bell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):

I was paired

with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILL
Subtopic:   FIRST READING
Permalink

March 10, 1933