May 23, 1956

PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

So were we.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

There is a little piece of paper that I unfortunately left on my desk in my office. However, I will read the balance of page 512 in Bourinot:

When the order of the day for committee has been reached and called in due form the speaker will put the question,

"That I do now leave the chair."

Now is the time to move any amendment to this question. Members opposed to the bill may move that the house resolve itself into committee on the bill that day three or six months; or may propose motions adverse to the principle or policy of the measure.

It has been frequently decided in the English house that, on the motion for the speaker to leave the chair, a member "is at liberty to discuss the main provisions, but not to proceed in detail through the clauses, nor to discuss amendments to the same, until the bill is regularly in committee".

Then at the bottom of the page there are various footnotes under various letters referring to the Canadian Commons Journals and also to the English Hansard.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

It is the succeeding paragraph to which I have reference, Mr. Speaker.

4254 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

On "Instructions"?

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

Yes; the paragraph dealing with instructions, not amendments.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

May I submit to the hon. member that instruction is either necessary or it is not. If the committee has power to deal with some of the matters upon which the hon. member wishes to instruct the committee, then the instruction is unnecessary and trivial and should not be entertained. But before the hon. member can move an instruction he must first of all have the right to do so. In my view at this juncture of our proceedings he has no alternative. The only thing that can happen is a division on the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole, because last evening the house ordered that the bill be considered in committee of the whole at the next sitting. By "next sitting" is meant the one which by standing order 18 (2) the leader of the house announced as being the one on which the bill would be considered in committee of the whole and that is today. Therefore the order of the day having been called for that order, I have no alternative but to put the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

May I with respect point out that the paragraph in Bourinot that I am directing attention to is one dealing with this question of instruction, not with amendments to the motion that you leave the chair, and I think it should be before the house. It is paragraph 8 on page 512, and reads as follows:

An "instruction", empowering a committee to make those changes in a bill which otherwise it could not make, should be moved as soon as the order for the committee has been read by the clerk, and before the question is put, that the Speaker do leave the chair. An instruction, properly speaking, is not of the nature of an amendment, but of a substantive motion which ought to have precendence of the question that the Speaker do leave the chair.

Now, sir, we also anticipated this matter last night and when Your Honour read the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think it was, that the house go into committee at its next sitting, we, I believe, protected the situation by the question we then asked which was whether that would require a motion to be put at the next sitting, "the next sitting" being the one that we have now embarked upon, and Your Honour answered, as reported at page 4246 of Hansard:

. . . and whenever the order is called I will have to put the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of

the whole upon this bill. At that moment it will be votable if the hon. member wishes to provoke a vote.

So that we did then establish that Your Honour has to put the question today, as is now about to be done, that it has been moved by Mr. Howe or Mr. Harris, as the case may be, that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on this bill. Bourinot states, and in this respect and at this date I submit that he is still an authority on instructions, that this is the time and the only time at which an instruction can be moved, when the order is called and before you put the question. He points out clearly that instruction is not an amendment but is, properly speaking, a substantive motion which ought to have precedence over the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. Therefore, sir, in my submission it is not material that we have amended the rules to prevent debate on the motion that Your Honour leave the chair to go into committee, and we are not asking to debate that motion. The precedent still stands that whether or not that motion be debatable, the motion for an instruction is a different motion, a substantive motion, and has precedence over the motion that you leave the -chair, so that this position is completely unaffected by the change that was made in the rules with respect to whether or not the motion to leave the chair is debatable.

As to the right of members to move instructions to the committee of the whole, I would refer of course to two precedents which were established in this house in the year 1948, and my first precedent is the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself who moved, on March 19, 1948, as recorded at page 2411 of Hansard, at this very stage, not to amend the motion for second reading, but an instruction and the Speaker of the day put the question as follows:

Mr. Howe moves, seconded by Mr. Gardiner, that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 135 into two bills, in order . . .

For the purpose then mentioned. This was the exact stage in which that instruction was moved. It was dealt with as a separate, substantive motion, having priority over the motion that Your Honour leave the chair. In the same year and in the same volume, as recorded on page 2207 of Hansard of March 15, 1948, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at this stage, immediately after the motion for the second reading had been carried and just before the question for Your Honour to leave the chair and the house to go into committee was put, moved an instruction to the committee of the whole that it have power to amend the bill by adding a clause, and that instruction, or the

motion for an instruction, was accepted and allowed for debate. Debate took place upon it and then the motion was voted on. The other case was a motion for instruction made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It was debated. The minister made a statement with regard to it on the circumstances of its introduction when he was introducing it.

It was debated shortly, it is true, but debated and then voted on.

Now, sir,-

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order. Would the hon. member be good enough to extend his remarks on the last precedent that he mentioned? The instruction was to the committee to add a clause?

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Was that to alter the title?

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fulton:

No. Perhaps I should read it.

At page 2207 of Hansard, in the middle of column 2, the following appears:

That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill 136 by inserting therein the following section:

2. Section four of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

Then follow the details of the substitution. But this is the important point. The instruction did not instruct the committee to repeal a section of the bill that was going to be committed. The bill that was going to be committed was a bill itself repealing some provision of a former act. What the instruction asked the committee to do was to add a section to the bill; that is, to the bill that was about to be committed. It was argued on that occasion and on other occasions that without such an instruction the committee would have no power to make the change requested. The subject matter of the instruction, of course, had to relate to the subject matter of the bill; it could not be something entirely outside the legislation. The instruction has to be something that gives the committee of the whole power to do something which otherwise they could not do, and it has to be permissive and not mandatory.

In other words, it has to give them power to do it; it has to be a power without which they could not perform the act requested. Therefore, I maintain the form of my instruction is clearly in order; it is permissive. This is the only way you can move an instruction to the committee of the whole. It relates to something connected with the bill, the Trans-Canada company and the circumstances under which loans and advances are to be made, all of which is a part of the subject matter of the bill. Without the instruction the committee could not make the particular change which I am now suggesting that it have power to make, so that 67509-270

1956 4255

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the instruction is, in my submission, completely in order under the regulations governing the form of instruction. It is moved at the proper time in accordance with the precedents which I have cited and the authority of Bourinot.

Since it is a substantive motion it takes precedence over the motion that you leave the chair. It is not an amendment and therefore the propriety of moving it, and its effect, are not altered by the fact that we have altered the rules with regard to debating the motion that you leave the chair. This is a different motion, and it is clearly in order at this stage and is debatable and I submit, sir, that we should get on with the debate as to whether or not the house agrees that the committee should be so instructed.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word?

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Shame.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

May I say a few words in support-

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

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

Mr. Knowles:

-of the point of order that has been made by the hon. member for Kamloops. I am sure that Your Honour will agree that he has done right in dividing the subject matter as you, sir, have done, into two questions. First, there is the question of whether or not we have the right to make an instruction at this stage at all. The second question would be as to whether or not the motion moved by the hon. member for Kamloops is a proper instruction. I shall not go into the latter question now except to say it does not seem to me it is a proper motion of instruction in that it does not give an order to the committee but rather gives the committee power to consider a certain motion if it wishes to do so.

With regard to the question as to whether we still have the right to move an instruction, it seems to me that the points the hon. member for Kamloops has made are clear cut and unanswerable. Bourinot's words on page 512 surely say that this is the time; namely, when the order for the second reading of the bill has been read by the Clerk and before the question is put that the Speaker do leave the chair.

May I remind Your Honour again of two instances and of yet a third one in 1948 along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops. In both of the instances to which the hon. member for Kamloops referred, the matter was not sprung on the house by way of surprise. In the case of the instruction I moved in connection with

4256 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Ilsley's Transitional Measures Act we had had discussion previously, in committee on the resolution, during which it was agreed across the floor that the proper way to deal with the matter was by moving an instruction at that point.

It is quite clear from Hansard at page 2207 for March 15, 1948, that just as soon as the motion for second reading had carried and before the motion was put that Your Honour leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on the bill, the motion for instruction was entertained by the Speaker of that day. The debate continued for a number of pages in Hansard and the motion came to a vote.

Similarly, in the case of the bill amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act, there was discussion in committee. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave an undertaking in the committee that he would meet the wishes of the Progressive Conservatives of that day and present a motion of instruction to enable the committee to divide the bill into two parts if it wished to do so. It is clear again that this was not a direction to the committee which it had to carry out but rather it was an instruction empowering the committee to make that change if it wished to do so.

It is true that on both occasions the motions for instruction were defeated but the main point at this juncture is as to whether or not there are precedents. Your Honour said there were none but we are citing these instances from 1948 as precedents when this was done, and done at this very point.

The third occasion in 1948 is not exactly the same as the two which have been referred to but I think it does have significance for us. On that occasion the Export Permits Bill was under discussion and we had actually got beyond this stage. We were in committee on the bill. While we were in committee on the bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce sought to move an amendment which seemed to the committee to be quite substantial. There was discussion as to whether or not this was in order and it was agreed in the committee that it would be better for the committee to have an instruction from the house permitting it to make that amendment. A problem did arise as to how the house could move an instruction to the committee since there is a citation that says this can only be done on the first occasion when a bill is being referred to a committee. That difficulty was overcome by the giving of unanimous consent. The only point to which unanimous consent was given was to this

being done at a stage later than the first occasion when the bill was committed to the committee of the whole.

Accordingly, on April 16, 1948, as recorded at page 3041 of Hansard, the hon. member for Ottawa West, then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, moved an instruction to the committee giving it power to amend Bill 138 as follows-and the wording that follows is about half a column in length.

There was a debate. True, it was very short and only the then hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario spoke on it. At any rate that constituted a debate and the motion of instruction was agreed to.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the point is pretty clearly established that although the practice has been followed rarely, nevertheless it is an established practice that after second reading has been agreed to, before Your Honour leaves the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole it is proper to move a motion of instruction recognizing, of course, that the motion, so far as its substance is concerned, has to meet the other requirements respecting motions of instruction. I think that this one does, but the first point that has to be settled is the right of the hon. member for Kamloops to move a motion of instruction at this point.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Alistair McLeod Stewart

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

Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I do not like what is going on. I have a very high regard for our democratic process; I have a very high regard, therefore, for parliament and for what parliament means to everybody. I think it is most unfortunate that Your Honour is being apparently placed in the position almost every day of having to act almost as a proponent of one side of an argument. It should be the duty of the leader of the house or the Prime Minister to answer these arguments which are being put up by the opposition, whether they are right or wrong.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Alistair McLeod Stewart

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

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

I think the Speaker of the house is being placed in a most invidious position when he is asked almost to act as a protagonist for the other side.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Permalink

May 23, 1956