December 10, 1951

PRIVILEGE, MR. BRADETTE SESSIONAL INDEMNITIES

?

Mr. J. A. Bradelle@Cochrane

Topic:   PRIVILEGE, MR. BRADETTE SESSIONAL INDEMNITIES
Permalink

STANDING ORDERS

CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


Mr. Matthew MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) presented the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

MORNING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12


Right Hon, L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the resolution of which notice appears at page 11 of the order paper, as follows: That on and after Wednesday, December 12, 1951, until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day and that, in addition to the usual intermission at 6.15 o'clock, p.m., there shall be an intermission everyday from 1 to 2.30 o'clock, p.m., except on Friday, when the intermission shall be from 1 to 2 o'clock, p.m.; and every Wednesday and Friday until the end of the session the house shall meet from 8 to 10 o'clock, p.m. I feel that it is the hope of many members of parliament that without unduly rushing anything we might complete the business that is to be dealt with perhaps even this week, and if not this week by early in next week so that hon. members, including those who reside at great distances from Ottawa, may have plenty of time to reach their homes before Christmas day. I hope that this motion will meet with unanimous approval of the house. ' . * ' " , 1712 HOUSE OF Business of the House


PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):

I am not prepared to give unanimous approval to a motion of this kind for a particular reason among others. Early in the session there was an indication that after several years of discussion there was going to be a committee on defence expenditures set up at this present session. In spite of the importance of that committee it began to sit only last week and for reasons which I need not discuss but which I do not regard as valid it has held only intermittent meetings.

The committee met again this morning and adjourned until Thursday. I would suggest that if there is any other reason why we should meet in an orderly way and not hasten the proceedings of this house to the point where business cannot be dealt with expeditiously by members who wish to sit on committees as well it is that there should be a report from the committee on defence expenditures before this house rises.

The motion before us is obviously for the purpose of getting work done so that the predictions that have been offered that we might terminate the sittings this week can be fulfilled. I believe that it is immensely important that the time of our sitting remain as it is so that hon. members who attend committees may also have an opportunity to sit in the house. A number of the committees are still sitting and these are all important committees. There is the committee on defence expenditures; there is the committee on radio; there are committees on other matters, and I think hon. members should still attach some importance to public accounts, which committee is still sitting.

There cannot be that attention to the work of these committees and also attention to the business of the house that the nature of the work of the house justifies if this motion is adopted. I urge strongly that it should not be adopted and that we continue to meet at the hours that have been set.

There is another reason. I think members of this house should be given an opportunity to digest the reports in order to be able to present their views thereon. It is perfectly clear at the moment that they will not have the slightest chance to examine these reports and express their opinion if this course is followed. Therefore I oppose the motion and I hope that it will not pass.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MORNING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Is the house ready to adopt the motion?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MORNING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Drew:

Is the motion in order?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MORNING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Yes.

(Mr. St. Laurent.]

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MORNING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

May I ask how this motion can be called when it appears on routine proceedings after the orders of the day?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MORNING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member will recall that I made a ruling on that matter last year, and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will also recall that I made such a ruling. Here is what I said, as reported in Votes and Proceedings of Monday, September 4, 1950:

I may say to the leader of the opposition that last year I considered this same question, and it then seemed to me, as he says, that such a motion should be considered at a later time. But under citation 132 in Beauchesne's second edition I notice the following:

"The motions allowed on routine proceedings are motions relating to the business of the house and for the discussion of reports from committees."

This motion definitely relates to the business of the house and should therefore be considered at this time. I think the misunderstanding arises from the fact that such motions generally appear under "government notices of motions." Actually, however, they are not "government notices of motions" in the usual sense.

In view of the citation which I have mentioned in Beauchesne's second edition and of the practice which has been established, I think the motion should be considered now.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   MORNING SITTINGS ON AND AFTER WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12
Permalink

REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION

CONSTITUTION AND DUTIES


Hon. C. G. Power (Quebec South' moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35, respecting the constitution and duties of the redistribution commission.


?

Some hon. Members:

Explain.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION AND DUTIES
Permalink
LIB

Charles Gavan Power

Liberal

Mr. Power:

This bill is to set up a commission of three members, whose duty it will be to draw a plan for the division of the provinces of Canada into electoral districts in accordance with the provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act, as enacted by the British North America Act, 1946.

This proposal is not a new one. It has been bandied back and forth across the floor of this house since 1889. I had the honour of being given the task of preparing a bill for presentation to this house in 1940, but owing to the abrupt conclusion of the session of that date it was not proceeded with. The details of the bill are somewhat complex and are likely to be controversial. It is for that reason I am asking permission to introduce the bill so that it may be distributed to the members, and it will be reintroduced next session.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION AND DUTIES
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

When shall the bill be read the second time?

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION COMMISSION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION AND DUTIES
Permalink

December 10, 1951