May 23, 1956

?

An hon. Member:

There is only one side in this house anyway.

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):

For the sake of parliament we should let the leader of the house put up arguments against the arguments which are being advanced here and let the Speaker make his decision.

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

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I have been under the impression through all these points of order-and I am speaking to the one raised now

that had anyone on this side given an opinion we would have had precisely the same answer that I received when I did express an opinion last week when the leader of the C.C.F. party commented that I directed the chairman to do something. I objected, Mr. Speaker, at that time that I did not ask for such a direction.

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

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

That is not the interpretation that should be placed on what I said.

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

Some hon. Members:

Sit down.

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

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Mr. Speaker, I object that when an hon. member on this side of the house rises on a point of order the people on the other side shout "Sit down". Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the British parliament 300 years ago and this government has effectively blown up this parliament without the risk of being hanged.

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

Joseph Miville Dechene

Liberal

Mr. Dechene:

Are you afraid of the big bad wolf?

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

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Harris:

Mr. Speaker, I should draw your attention to a ruling, or an explanation at any rate, of what I think is presently under consideration. It may not be complete but I read to you in the second edition an extract from Beauchesne which reads this way:

If an instruction is moved-

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. Fulion:

What page, please?

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

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Harris:

In a moment.

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:

From what page are you reading?

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

Walter Edward Harris (Minister of Finance and Receiver General; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Harris:

Page 134, item 431. I continue:

If an instruction is moved when the motion to leave the chair is proposed, then it becomes an amendment which, if agreed to, supersedes the motion for the committee, and the bill consequently cannot be proceeded with for the time being.

Now, sir, you have already said, and I think it has been generally accepted, that the motion you are about to put to the house is not debatable and ergo not amendable. Under those circumstances, if the motion now proposed by my hon. friend is accepted and if it becomes an amendment then it violates the ruling you have already given and which we always understood has been the case.

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:

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the reason-

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. I think I am quite prepared now to give a preliminary view

67509-270J

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation as to how I look upon this matter. It may be that if the hon. member wishes to argue the point further-

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:

I should like to reply to the minister.

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

An hon. Member:

There is no debate.

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:

At this moment if hon. members wish to hear me in silence I will review the situation. Last evening the question was put, "When should we go into committee of the whole on this bill?" The answer is either now or at the next sitting. The motion was that we go into the committee of the whole at the next sitting. A division was asked for and the house carried that motion, and therefore the bill was ordered for committee of the whole at the next sitting. We are at the next sitting. The orders of the day having been called, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) supported as he thinks by Bourinot at page 512, moved a motion which he contends is a substantive motion in the nature of an instruction to the committee to give the committee powers to do something which otherwise it may not do. Let us look at page 512 of Bourinot, which states:

An "instruction", empowering a committee to make those changes in a bill which otherwise it could not make,-

The first question which is raised here is: Could the committee of the whole make these changes without this instruction? We will keep that one in mind and deal with it later. I continue reading from Bourinot:

-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-

I interrupt there to comment as follows: Because Bourinot contends that an instruction is of the nature of a substantive motion does not make that motion for instruction a substantive motion. Bourinot likens it to a substantive motion, but that does not make that motion a substantive motion. I continue:

-which ought to have precedence of the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. If an instruction is moved when the latter motion is proposed, then it becomes an amendment, which, if agreed to, supersedes the motion for the committee, and the bill consequently cannot be proceeded with for the time being.

The motion proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops was sent to the chair before the motion that I leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole was proposed. Therefore this paragraph does not apply. I continue quoting Bourinot at page 513:

Considerable misapprehension appears to exist as to the meaning of an instruction. An instruction is given to a committee to confer on it that

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation power which, without such instruction, it would not have. If the subject matter of an instruction is relevant to the subject matter and within the scope and title of a bill, then such instruction is irregular since the committee had the power to make the required amendment. The following precedents will illustrate the correct practice with respect to this class of motions.

Then Bourinot gives several examples of similar motions. If hon. members will carry on to pages 514 and 515 they will come to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Cockburn, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker Cockburn decided that the committee had the power to do what was proposed, and that consequently the motion was irregular. In 1872, when the question for committee on the bill to repeal the insolvency laws was under consideration in the Canadian House of Commons, Mr. Harrison moved that it be an instruction to the committee to except the province of Ontario from the operation of the bill. Mr. Blake having made objection to the motion, Mr. Speaker Cockburn ruled: "As the bill affected the whole dominion the committee have already the power asked for in the motion, and consequently it is out of order."

I quote this to show that it is within the power of the Speaker to reject a motion if it is his view that the committee has the power to deal with the subject matter of the instruction contained in the motion. Then I come to the various precedents which the hon. member for Kamloops has cited, as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Reference was made to an instruction to divide a bill. I think the hon. member could have quoted an instruction to consolidate a bill or an instruction to ask the committee to go beyond the title of the bill. If the hon. member will look at page 515 of Bourinot's fourth edition he will see the rules which have been laid down and he will see also that in certain cases the committee of the whole has no other choice but to receive an instruction if it is to divide a bill or consolidate a bill. In the instances quoted by the hon. member it seems to me that had the committee not received the instruction, because of the rules laid down by Bourinot and the decisions of English Speakers as outlined at page 515, the committee could not have proceeded. Here are the decisions:

Decisions of English Speakers have also laid down the following rules with respect to instruction:

"That it requires an instruction to divide a bill into two parts or to consolidate two bills into one.

That notice should be given of an instruction when a member has proposed such as a substantive motion, and not as an amendment to the question, that the Speaker do leave the chair."

When Bourinot says at the beginning of the section dealing with this subject that it is of the nature of a substantive motion, he is also noting that when it is to be considered as a substantive motion, therefore debatable

FMr. Speaker.]

and amendable, notice should be given. Those are the rules laid down by the decisions of English Speakers. I continue:

"That when a bill is simply a continuance bill of an act now in force, it is not competent for the committee to introduce a clause of a different nature to the simple scope of such bill, but it may be an instruction to the committee to introduce such a clause."

I have read the rules which have been laid down by English Speakers. I feel that I am justified, not by what the hon. member for Kamloops or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, but what the English Speakers have said as laid down by Bourinot. I continue:

"That It is not regular to instruct a committee to entertain a question which is outside of the bill before them."

That is the end of the various decisions as to instruction. All this has to be read in conjunction with the paragraph on page 513, which reads:

Considerable misapprehension appears to exist as to the meaning of an instruction. An instruction is given to a committee to confer on it that power which, without such instruction, it would not have. If the subject matter of an instruction is relevant to the subject matter and within the scope and title of a bill, then such instruction is irregular since the committee had the power to make the required amendment.

I have already indicated that Mr. Speaker Cockburn and many others have ruled that in their view a certain instruction was one that the committee had power to do. I will read this proposed instruction in order to find out whether the committee could not have dealt with it in committee of the whole. The instruction is to provide that no loan or advance shall be made to or agreement made with Trans-Canada unless the majority of the issued shares of its capital stock is owned by Canadians. Clause 6(2) of the bill reads:

The Minister of Finance, at the request of the corporation and with the approval of the governor in council, may from time to time out of the consolidated revenue fund lend money to the corporation on such terms and conditions as the governor in council approves, but such loans to the corporation shall bear interest at a rate that is not less than three and one-quarter per cent per annum.

Do hon. members not think that an additional condition could be placed and be within the scope of the bill?

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:

I do not.

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:

The hon. member for

Kamloops says, "No." If it were to be moved as an amendment what would be the condition required? The condition would be that it be relevant to the clause under consideration. Certainly this is relevant to clause 6(2). If I had a chance to read through the bill,

as I am sure my hon. friend has, perhaps I could find many other spots where this thing could be moved as an amendment. Will he not agree that his instruction is not necessary because the committee of the whole has power to deal with the subject matter that he has in mind. In any event I see that there is no particular anxiety to argue against what I have said, but shall I rule now?

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

Some hon. Members:

Yes.

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

May 23, 1956