May 4, 1951

LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

I have not before me yet the ruling made by Mr. Speaker. I understand it was made on the motion for second reading of this bill. If my memory serves me right, perhaps not on the occasion referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra but on some other occasion, I think the Speaker indicated that a bill could not be proceeded with if the sponsor was not here. But it would seem to me that as long as a representative of the sponsor is here,

we may proceed. The point of order should have been raised when the motion was made for the Speaker to leave the chair on this bill. I now have before me the ruling which was made by Mr. Speaker the other day, and which was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. It is to be found at page 2579 of Hansard. At that time he said:

... I will say that I have always considered that a private member who is sponsoring a bill stands in the same position as a member of the government who introduces a bill in the house. As hon. members know, when a government bill is introduced, it is introduced by a minister. There may be an amendment to that bill introduced by a private member. The discussion either on the bill or on the amendment does not proceed without the consent of the minister who introduced the bill. Why should a private member not stand in the same position? That has been the attitude that I have taken, and although I realize that it might appear that an injustice is being done, nevertheless I feel that I should not change the ruling which I made on Friday, .Tune 23. It has been said that the bill is now in the possession of the house, and that the amendment is in the possession of the house. That is so, and neither the amendment nor the bill can be withdrawn without the consent of the house. That also would be true of a bill introduced by a member of the government. A member of the government could not without consent withdraw his bill once it is in the possession of the house. As I say, I have given considerable thought to this. I think the rules of procedure might be amended. Until they are amended I feel I must abide by my ruling which I made on June 23, and allow the bill to stand.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

May I refer Your Honour to Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday the first of May, page 323. There we find the following:

The order being read for resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Robinson for the second reading of Bill No. 118 (Letter N-l of the Senate), intituled: "An act to incorporate

Border Pipeline Corporation," and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Herridge;

A point of order having been raised by Mr. Benidickson to the effect that in the absence of the sponsor of the bill, the order should not be proceeded with.

Mr. Speaker ruled the point of order well taken.

In that case there was actually an amendment and the mover of the amendment was in the house. Nevertheless Mr. Speaker still ruled, as set out in. Votes and Proceedings-

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

Would the hon. member repeat the page number?

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Page 323. The Speaker's ruling was:

A point of order having been raised by Mr. Benidickson to the effect-

These are the key words:

-that in the absence of the sponsor of the bill, the order should not be proceeded with.

Mr. Speaker ruled the point of order well taken.

That is clearly the case here.

Private Bills

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

There is no doubt that in the instance referred to by the hon. member it is a clear case where the ruling of Mr. Speaker applies in the manner which I quoted a moment ago. However, if I remember correctly, in the debate on the second reading of the bill the hon. member was already the representative of the member whose name appears on the bill as the sponsor. He gave replies to hon. members who participated in the debate. Therefore the house has already accepted the hon. member for Lincoln as the acting sponsor of the bill. He was acting in that capacity when second reading of the bill was proposed. If my memory is not correct on that point perhaps the hon. member for Lincoln and others might correct me. If my memory serves me right, however, it was the hon. member for Lincoln wlio acted on behalf of the hon. member for Hamilton East when the bill was piloted through second reading. Therefore he was accepted by the house at that time. No point of order was raised, and he is here tonight to reply to questions which may be asked in committee. Therefore I would say that this instance is not exactly similar to the one that Mr. Speaker had to deal with the other day.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Before you make your ruling, may I submit further on the point of order that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was just as much acting for the sponsor of the Border Pipeline Corporation bill as the hon. member is doing tonight on this measure now under consideration. Where one member happens to speak for another member on one day and no objection is raised on that particular day, surely the house is not going to be put in the position that it must, while the bill continues before it, accept the sponsorship of that acting sponsor. There is a very good reason why the sponsor should be here. He is the one man who should be able to explain the terms of the bill.

When this particular bill was before the house the other night it was with the Speaker in the chair, and we could not ask questions. Now we are at the committee stage when questions can be asked, and I suggest that if any member raises a point of order that the sponsor should be present that point of order cannot be simply brushed aside with the statement that a week ago, or two or three weeks ago, there was an acting sponsor, and because the point of order was not raised then it cannot be effectively raised tonight. I submit that Your Honour is bound by the very definite ruling made by the Speaker this week after quite an argument on the point of order, and after the Speaker had taken some time to consider the matter. He made the very definite ruling that unless the

Private Bills

sponsor is here a private bili cannot be proceeded with. I suggest if Your Honour makes a contrary ruling tonight it is going directly against the ruling the Speaker made on Tuesday evening.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

Perhaps at this point I should refer hon. members to the first ruling to which Mr. Speaker alluded in making his ruling the other night. It appears at page 570 of Journals of the house.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
PC
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

June 23, 1950. In the third paragraph hon. members will notice this:

Presumably, at times bills have been proceeded with when the honourable members who introduced them were not in the chamber, but in such instances some member has stated that he has the approval of the member who introduced the bill to proceefi.

If the hon. member for Lincoln states he has the approval of the hon. member for Hamilton East to proceed, I would be within the ruling of Mr. Speaker on that occasion. Furthermore, in my humble view, I would say that the point of order should have been raised on the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair, and not at this stage. I believe hon. members should have brought to the attention of the house then that the sponsor of the bill was not present, and reminded Mr. Speaker of the ruling which was referred to a moment ago by the member for Vancouver East and the member for Vanccuver-Quadra. If reliance is to be placed on the sentence which I quoted in the ruling of Mr. Speaker of June 23, 1950, it is clearly in ordrr for the member for Lincoln, provided he assures the house again that he has the authorization of the sponsor to represent him on this bill, to proceed.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Harry Peter Cavers

Liberal

Mr. Cavers:

When this bill was given

first reading I was asked by the member for Hamilton East to appear for him when the matter came before the house. On second reading, I again appeared as acting representative for the member for Hamilton East. At that time 1 was asked by members of the house to explain the bill, and I endeavoured to do so. It was accepted at that time. Now the matter is in committee stage, and I still appear representing the member for Hamilton East, with his permission and consent.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

Having heard the hon. member for Lincoln state he has the consent and authorization of the sponsor at this time to represent him, I would say that it is in order to proceed with the bill. In order to make sure that there is no difference in the view I express now and the one expressed by Mr. Speaker, I shall quote again

TMr. Green.]

his ruling of June 23, 1950, starting with the paragraph I just quoted and then giving his conclusions.

In the third paragraph he says:

Presumably, at times bills have been proceeded with when the honourable members who introduced them were not in the chamber, but in such instances seme member has stated that he has the approval of the member who introduced the bill to proceed. The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has referred to the Speech from the Throne, but it is assumed in that debate that the mover and the seconder approve of the debate continuing. If for any reason that debate were not to be continued I would think that arrangements would be made and that the house would be informed accordingly.

I do not think I should depart at this time from practice and allow the debate on this bill to continue in the absence cf the honourable member who introduced1 it and of the minister who moved the amendment. I therefore rule that under our practice an order for resuming the adjourned debate on the second reading of a private member's bill is proceeded with only at the instance of the sponsor of the bill or of a member authorized to act on the sponsor's behalf.

I believe that clearly sets out that we are in order, now that the statement has been made by the hon. member for Lincoln that he is authorized to act on the sponsor's behalf.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

That is on an entirely different point, and I see that on that occasion I was the one who raised the point of order. No one was objecting to the acting sponsor. The whole point of order tonight has been an objection to the acting sponsor, and the ruling of the Speaker on Tuesday last was to the effect that a sponsor must be present. Why should a member be allowed to sponsor a bill, and then stay out of the house while it is being considered, and have some other member act on his behalf? If a member of this house spon'sors a private bill he should be here to answer questions about it, and not allow some other member to try to answer the questions for him. I submit that His Honour's ruling on Tuesday was on that particular point, and it is that particular point which is being raised tonight.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

William Alfred Robinson

Liberal

Mr. Robinson:

I am afraid that the member for Vancouver-Quadra is under a misapprehension as to the ruling the Speaker made on Tuesday evening. I believe that tonight we are faced with an entirely different situation. As I understand, on Tuesday night the member for Kenora-Rainy River, in my absence and on my authorization, asked that the bill which I was sponsoring be allowed to stand. In other words, I had not given my consent to the bill being proceeded with at that time. The Speaker ruled that the bill could not be proceeded with without the consent of the sponsoring member, not because the sponsoring member was absent from the house.

in support of that contention I would direct your attention to a paragraph from the Speaker's ruling of June 23, 1950, in which the Speaker said:

I have never known of a private bill or of a public bill which has been introduced by a private member being proceeded with in his absence and without his consent.

I think the important words there are "without his consent", and as I understand the ruling of the Speaker on Tuesday evening it was that since I had not given my consent the bill must stand. This evening, therefore, we are faced with a different situation because apparently the sponsoring member does consent to the bill being proceeded with.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
PC

William Joseph Browne

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):

May I ask

whether the house is bound by the minutes as recorded in Votes and Proceedings or by the statement in Hansard, because they seem to be contradictory.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

The Journals of the house constitute the authority so far as the rulings are concerned. It is getting close to nine o'clock, but my view at the moment certainly leads me to declare that it is in order to proceed with this bill.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

In view of the definite statement in the finding contained in Votes and Proceedings to the effect that in the absence of the sponsor of a bill the order should not be proceeded with, may I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you consult with the Speaker on the point before proceeding.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

By referring to

the ruling of Mr. Speaker of June 23, 1950, from which I have quoted the pertinent extracts, it is clear that if an hon. member is authorized by the sponsor of the bill to represent him at any stage of the discussion of the bill, it is in order to proceed.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander Cruickshank

Liberal

Mr. Cruickshank:

It is nine o'clock, and I move the adjournment of the debate.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Deputy Chairman:

Shall I report

progress?

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Section stands.

Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.

Topic:   UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC EPISCOPAL CORPORATION OF EASTERN CANADA
Permalink

May 4, 1951