Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the motion moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is out of order. I base my contention on a clear-cut standing order, namely standing order No. 78, paragraph 1, which reads as follows:
78. (1) In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that standing order-and incidentally, I heard no standing order or citation produced in support of the motion presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce-is a clear-cut direction to the committee that, apart from the preamble and the title, all of the other clauses must be considered by the committee in their proper order. Surely, the proper order is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. In case it is contended that any consideration has been given to clause 1 because the Minister of Trade and Commerce was on his feet for a few seconds, may I remind you of a ruling that was given yesterday by Mr. Speaker on another matter. On that occasion some of us were trying to contend that in 1948, on the motion of instruction with regard to the bill amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act, there had been debate because the Minister of Trade and Commerce had spoken briefly introducing his motion on that occasion. Mr. Speaker ruled that those fbw words of explanation could not be regarded as debate. I could go on
another occasion when seven pages of speaking were ruled-by Mr. Speaker-as not constituting debate. However, I am not relying on that incident. I am relying on the first one I mentioned which is more akin to the one now before us because there was only a brief statement.
That brief statement which the Minister of Trade and Commerce made as reported at page 2411 of Hansard of March 19, 1948, was ruled by Mr. Speaker as not constituting debate. Relying on that ruling I insist that the few words of explanation as to why he was moving this motion today which were spoken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce do not constitute debate and that therefore there has been no consideration of clause 1. I will go further, Mr. Chairman, and say that the motion which you have before you, and which was given to you by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, contains a misstatement or a misnomer. It reads "That further consideration of clause 1 be postponed". I think it is clear to everyone that there has been no consideration of clause 1. How can there be accepted by Your Honour any language of that kind which suggests that further consideration of clause 1 be postponed? Therefore, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of my statement that the motion itself contains a false statement or a misnomer; on the basis of the ruling Mr. Speaker gave yesterday with regard to the few words spoken on an occasion such as this, and on the basis of standing order 78 (1) I contend that this motion at this time is out of order.
Subtopic: CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.