March 26, 1953

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES

OFFICIAL REPORT


BEING THE 95th SESSION FOR THE PERIOD 1867-1953


VOLUME IV, 1952-53 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE TWENTY-SIXTH DAY OF MARCH, 1953, TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF APRIL, 1953, INCLUSIVE INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., O.A., D.S.P.


queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1953



Thursday, March 26, 1953


STANDING ORDERS

CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte) presented the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


INTERPRETATION OF STANDING ORDER 60

LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Recently hon. members discussed the proper construction of standing order 60. The house will recall that on the 18th June, 1952, I made a ruling with respect to this standing order which was to the effect that on the second day, that is, when the order is called for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on a resolution dealing with money a full discussion of the resolution is not in order. However, in view of the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Glen in February, 1942, I ruled that a debate was permissible provided it was directed to the negative of the motion. When that ruling was made some hon. members expressed doubt whether it could be put into effect. It was not long before I came to the same conclusion and I think all members agree that my ruling of the 18th June last must be revised. Most members, if not all, who spoke recently on the point of order were of the opinion that there should be no debate at all or that a full debate should be allowed on the resolution.

Standing order 60 was adopted in the House of Commons in 1867 in almost the identical wording it has today. Debates took place from time to time over the years on the second day. In 1905 Mr. Sproule, who later became Speaker under the administration of the late Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, objected to this procedure. He is reported at column 320 of Hansard of that year as follows:

On Friday next will not the Speaker have to leave the chair, in compliance with the motion just made, and allow the house to go into committee of the whole without a motion to that effect being made again, and will not this preclude any debate before the house is in committee?

However, his opinion did not prevail and debates continued to take place until 1912. Between 1912 and 1919 there were 140 resolutions and I can find only two instances where any debate took place. On October 15, 1919, pages 1013-14 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker Rhodes, who was Speaker under the administrations of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden and the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, ruled that the motion was not debatable but that a vote could take place upon it. His ruling was generally respected until about the year 1930, after which the number of debates on this motion gradually increased.

It is to be noted that in February, 1942, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King objected to a debate at this stage and Mr. Speaker Glen gave the ruling to which I have referred. Subsequently, in 1946, Mr. King again contended that the motion was not debatable and quoted a communication from Dr. Arthur Beauchesne to that effect. See Hansard, page 761 of that year.

Along with standing order 60 it is necessary to consider standing order 38. It is to be noted that when Sir Robert Borden sponsored the resolution amending standing order 17 (a), which is now our standing order 38, in an amended form, he is quoted at column 7406 of Hansard of April 9, 1913, as saying:

What we have sought to do is to provide that ail substantial motions, which bring into question the propriety of passing any bill, measure, or vote, shall be debatable in the future as they have been in the past, but that purely formal motions, which, under the existing rules, would be used only for dilatory purposes, shall not in future continue to be debatable. That has been our object, and we propose to carry it into effect in a reasonable way.

From these words there seems to be no doubt that the intention of Sir Robert Borden while safeguarding the freedom of speech was to eliminate the occasions on which repetitious debate could arise. That I consider to be the spirit in which standing order 38 was adopted.

The resolution is not debatable on the first day by virtue of clause 1 (a) of standing order 38. On that day the house makes a decision that the resolution should be considered by a committee of the whole house at the next sitting. I must determine whether debate is permissible on the second day. It seems to me that a debate on the resolution at this stage cannot be permitted. The house has already decided that it should

Standing Order 60

go into committee at the next sitting to consider the resolution. It is surely, therefore, wrong for the house to consider at the said next sitting the resolution with the Speaker in the chair on the following grounds:

(1) That once a question has been decided by the house it cannot be reopened in the same session. See Beauchesne's third edition, citation 332.

(2) That when a resolution has been referred to a committee of the whole house that resolution cannot be debated in the house until the committee has reported.

What debate, if any, can be permitted on the second day, or is. a further motion of any kind required when the order under government orders is called "that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the following resolution . . . '. As stated above, since the house has already made a decision that that particular resolution is to be considered by the committee it is obviously irregular to have any further debate on that point. Therefore, the only possible subject matter for debate is as to whether the Speaker should leave the chair at that particular time, or later that day, or on some other day. However, even that subject matter is not debatable. Standing order 17 (2) provides that "whenever government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit", and of course it is the practice for the government to announce the

night before just what business will be called, the following day. In this way no one is taken by surprise.

From the above it would appear that the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on a money resolution moved on the second day under the provisions of standing order 60 is purely a procedural motion. It stands on the order of proceedings for the day, and were it other than a procedural motion it would, under standing order 38, be debatable. But procedural motions are not debatable. This was decided by Mr. Speaker Lemieux on June 18, 1923. See Hansard, page 4013 of that year. He said:

A bill is regularly on its way to the committee of the whole house and the motion has been made that X do now leave the chair. It is a purely formal motion.

It is doubtful if any motion at all is really necessary, but as Mr. Speaker Lemieux has ruled, and as Mr. Speaker Rhodes has also

ruled that the motion should be made, and that, though the motion is not debatable, the members have a right to vote thereon, I will follow their rulings.

Accordingly in future once the house has decided that the Speaker will leave the chair at the next sitting of the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider a resolution I will put the motion when the order is called, but the motion will not be debatable although members will have the right to vote thereon.

Topic:   INTERPRETATION OF STANDING ORDER 60
Permalink
PC

George Alexander Drew (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I cannot accept the ruling; but in view of the fact that it is obvious there must be a review of the rules, as has been indicated on different occasions during this session, I prefer not to divide the house but to leave the matter in the record in that way.

Topic:   INTERPRETATION OF STANDING ORDER 60
Permalink

QUESTIONS

NEW POST OFFICE BUILDINGS, MARITIME PROVINCES

PC

Mr. Robichaud:

Progressive Conservative

1. How many new post office buildings have been constructed1 in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, since 1945?

2. In what localities were these buildings constructed and at what price?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NEW POST OFFICE BUILDINGS, MARITIME PROVINCES
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

1 and 2. New Brunswick: 1950-52, Fredericton, public building, $802,882.23; 1950-52, St. Stephen, public building, $192,807.61.

Nova Scotia: 1945-46, Canso, public building, $48,994.41; 1947-50, Halifax (north end) public building, $79,193.21; 1950-51, Dominion, public building, $31,072; 1950-51, Kingston, public building, $60,538.14.

Prince Edward Island: 1950-53, Summer-side, public building, $377,628.60.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   NEW POST OFFICE BUILDINGS, MARITIME PROVINCES
Permalink

CHICOUTIMI, LAPOINTE AND LAC-SAINT-JEAN COUNTIES, QUE. HEALTH AND WELFARE PAYMENTS

IND

Paul-Edmond Gagnon

Independent

Mr. Gagnon:

Since January 1, 1949, what amounts have been spent each year by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the counties of (a) Chicoutimi; (b) Lapointe; (c) Lac-Saint-Jean, (i) for the payment of medical fees and other professional services, and to whom; (ii) under the following headings: immigration medical services, special

technical services, general health grants, hospital construction grants, general public health grants, tuberculosis control grants, mental health grants, professional training grants and cancer control grants?

Topic:   CHICOUTIMI, LAPOINTE AND LAC-SAINT-JEAN COUNTIES, QUE. HEALTH AND WELFARE PAYMENTS
Permalink
LIB

Emmett Andrew McCusker (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Liberal

Mr. McCusker:

(a) (i) and (ii)

Questions

Quarantine, Immigration Medical, and Sick Mariners 1949 1950 1951Dr. R. Rousseau $ cts. 182 00 1,448 00 $ cts. 194 00 1,350 00 $ cts. 247 00 1,480 00Dr. Leo Tanguay Dr. J. Luc Morin Dr. Georges T. Gauthier 40 00 2,401 00 360 00 270 00 15 00 2,223 00 804 75 225 00 3 00 140 00 302 00 3 00Dr. Eugene Tremblay 1,533 00 798 00 205 00 Dr. Gilles Tremblay Dr. Gaston Comtois Dr. Roland Saucier Dr. Gerard Boudreault Dr. George W. Tremblay 404 50 5 00 546 50 Dr. P. Riverin Dr. J. A. Desbiens Dr. Gerard Guillemette Dr. Emile Beaulieu 2,306 00 2,184 00 2,140 00

6,881 50 7,345 50 7,582 75

S cts.

1,428 00 220 00 10 00 2,042 00 145 00 205 00 18 00 180 00 78 00

9 00 41 00 2,115 00

6,491 00

General Health Grants:-

Hospital construction grant:-

Hotel-Dieu St. Vallier de Chicoutimi, total amount approved $362,744.53.

Venereal Disease control grant:-

Diagnostic and treatment services to the venereal disease clinic at the Hotel-Dieu St. Vallier de Chicoutimi.

As these services form part of the overall provincial V. D. control programme, information as to the amount of federal assistance spent in respect of this particular hospital is not readily available.

Mental health grant:-

Support of psychiatric services at the Hotel-Dieu St. Vallier de Chicoutimi Hospital., Public health research grant:-

Support of a study on chemical dosage of pregnanediol during miscarriage proceedings being carried out in the laboratories of the Hotel-Dieu St. Vallier de Chicoutimi..

All other headings.

(b) (i) and (ii) All headings__

(c) (i) and (ii)

General health grants:-

Hospital construction grant:-

Hotel Dieu d'Alma, total amount approved $183,873.22.,

All other headings.

Expenditures

$ cts.

1949 - -1950 - -1951 - _1952 - 163,801 671949 [DOT]1950 [DOT]1951 *1952 *

1,984 00 9,554 00

1949 - -1950 - -1951 - -1952 - 2,684 001949 - -1950 - -1951 - -1952 - -1949 - -1950 - -1951 - -1952 - -1949 - -1950 - -1951 - -1952 - 79,436 661949 - -1950 - -1951 - -1952 - -

68108-209J

3296 HOUSE OF

Inquiries of the Ministry

Topic:   CHICOUTIMI, LAPOINTE AND LAC-SAINT-JEAN COUNTIES, QUE. HEALTH AND WELFARE PAYMENTS
Permalink

NATIONAL FILM BOARD REVENUE

March 26, 1953