February 24, 1936

CCF

Abraham Albert Heaps

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. HEAPS:

I should like to have the question answered, if I may, because the question is important whether a bill which comes in subsequently to a resolution has priority, or whether preference should be given the resolution.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I do not think it is important, because the bill has been discussed.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

May says at page 272:

A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the house, whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion. [DOT]

Therefore a bill cannot be anticipated by any general resolution which has not yet been so considered. That is the entire point for your consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):

May I reply to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who called attention to the fact that the bill deals with traffic from Fort William and Port Arthur in Ontario and all points west-

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

And it is grain traffic.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

But the resolution deals with domestic traffic between points in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Certainly there are two distinct classes of traffic dealt with by the bill and the resolution respectively. They are not identical by any means. The right hon. leader of the opposition has stated that the test is this: despite the passage of the bill, the resolution would still have effect if adopted?

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Marine; Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. HOWE:

I should like to ask the mover of the resolution this question: Has any

part of his argument to do with anything but domestic rates on grain from the prairies to the Pacific coast?

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
CON

Ernest Edward Perley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

Yes, the interprovincial rates.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Marine; Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. HOWE:

There is no movement of interprovincial grain, except to the coast.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
CON

Ernest Edward Perley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

Yes, there is all sorts of movement from one point in a province to another point. They are shipping grain from the northern part of Saskatchewan to the southern part for feed purposes.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Does any other member wish to speak to the point of order?

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
REC

Henry Herbert Stevens

Reconstruction

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (East Kootenay):

I should like to make my position clear, in the event of there being an appeal from Mr. Speaker's ruling. I do not know what his ruling will be, but I anticipate he will rule that the resolution is out of order. I am inclined to agree that that view is correct, because while the language in the bill is not the same as that used in the resolution, I find that the bill does use the expression-

-from all points on all lines of railway west of Fort William to Fort William or Port Arthur, and to all such traffic moving westwardly from Fort William, and from all points on all lines of railway west of Fort William, to Vancouver, British Columbia and to ports on the Pacific coast, over all lines now or hereafter constructed by any company subject to the jurisdiction of parliament.

To appreciate the significance of those words we must remember that it was some few years ago that the act which made the Crowsnest rates effective was amended to enlarge the original act to apply in large degree to the prairie provinces. The bill of the hon. member for New Westminster seeks to enlarge the original legislation so that it will encompass the British Columbia coast. At the same time, as I read the bill it would apply just as well to all lines in the prairie provinces. The bill may not be

Freight Rates on Grain

worded as clearly as it could be, tout that is a condition which could be dealt with in committee of the whole. I see no difference between the meaning of the bill and the meaning of the resolution, with the exception that the resolution makes a reservation of three cents, and the bill does not. That, again, is a matter which could very well be considered in committee of the whole. If your honour rules the bill out of order I am seeking to make clear my reason for supporting your ruling.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

On Thursday I began to give a decision in this matter which, to-day, I shall complete as follows:

The adjournment of the debate last Thursday on the second reading of Bill No. 2, am act. to amend the Railway Act (rates on grain), meant that the question shall again be considered at a future sitting when the order for public bills will be reached. This is what is called, in parliamentary procedure, appointing a matter for consideration by the house. May, page 272, gives many precedents showing that the discussion of an appointed matter cannot be anticipated by a motion. The bill proposes to extend to the westward traffic, from Fort William to Vancouver and the Pacific coast, the rates on grain and flour agreed to in the Orowsnest pass agreement embodied in its essence as follows in the annual statutes of 1897:

That there shall be a reduction in the company's present rates and tolls on grain and flour from all points on its main line, branches or connections west of Fort William to Fort William and Port Arthur and all points east, of three cents per one hundred pounds.

The order adjourning the debate had been passed by the house when Mr. Perley, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, moved that domestic freight rates on grain products, from and to any point in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, be reduced to at least not more than three cents per hundred pounds over the existing export rates.

There is sufficient similarity in the bill and the motion to confine them to one debate. The domestic rates dealt with in the motion are included in the rates and tolls on grain and flour mentioned in the Orowsnest agreement. The question centralizes on grain rates in western Canada, and debate thereon could not be allowed last Thursday a few minutes after the house had adjourned it to a future sitting. The difference in details between the two propositions may be dealt with by moving amendments when the bill is in committee of the whole, but it is not

.

sufficient to justify a duplication of the debate. It is a well known principle that the same question cannot be raised twice in the same session.

The main object sought both by the bill and the motion is the reduction of rates on grain and its products moving westwardly in the prairie provinces and British Columbia. They are both intended to put an end to an alleged unfairness in the present rates, and the whole debate, which will be centred on that grievance, must take place on the bill and not on the motion.

As Campion says, in applying the anticipation rule, preference is given to the discussion which leads to the most effective results, and this has established a descending scale. A bill has the right of way and cannot be sidetracked by a motion.

I cannot follow any other course than to decide that the discussion of Mr. Perley's motion is blocked by the adjournment of the debate on Bill No. 2, and for that reason, I have to declare that the motion cannot now be debated and must be struck off the order paper.

This decision does not prevent the subject matter of Mr. Perley's motion from being discussed when the bill is under discussion.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Your honour has not dealt with the fact that the resolution had priority on the order paper. I appeal from the Speaker's ruling.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The Speaker having declared that the motion of Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle) is out of order, the right hon. leader of

the opposition (Mr. Bennett) appeals from the decision of the Chair. Is it the pleasure of the house that the decision of the Speaker be sustained?

And the yeas and nays having been called, the ruling was sustained, on division.

Topic:   FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Subtopic:   DEBATE AND RULING OP MR. SPEAKER ON POINT OP ORDER RAISED BY MR. POWER ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20
Permalink

BANKS AND BANKING

PROPOSED NATIONAL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF BANK OF CANADA AND CHARTERED . BANKS


On the motion of Mr. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar): That, in the opinion of this house, the government be requested to submit for the consideration of this house such legislation as may be neeesSary for the national ownership and control of the central Bank of Canada and the chartered banks.


LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before this motion is proceeded with, I suggest to the hon. member that it might be advisable for him to amend

. Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Woodsworth

his motion, as otherwise I am afraid I shall be bound to declare it out of order as I did the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) the other day, on the ground that in my opinion if this motion were carried it would involve the expenditure of public money.

Topic:   BANKS AND BANKING
Subtopic:   PROPOSED NATIONAL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF BANK OF CANADA AND CHARTERED . BANKS
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the motion stand until I have had an opportunity of considering the point.

Motion stands.

Topic:   BANKS AND BANKING
Subtopic:   PROPOSED NATIONAL OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF BANK OF CANADA AND CHARTERED . BANKS
Permalink

February 24, 1936