May 28, 1965

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES

?

Maurice Bourget (Speaker of the Senate)

Mr. Speaker:

Order. It is a particular pleasure for me, and a privilege and an honour, to call the attention of all hon. Members in the House today to the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of all the Speakers from the ten provinces in Canada, who are here attending the Canadian Area Council meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am sure we all appreciate their presence here.

Topic:   PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES
Permalink

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT

AMENDMENT RESPECTING VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK-OFF

NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. C-108, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT RESPECTING VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK-OFF
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Explain.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT RESPECTING VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK-OFF
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Speaker, this bill does exactly what its title indicates; it provides for the introduction of the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues. The language of the bill is exactly the language that was agreed to by the Industrial Relations Committee of 1948 and recommended to the House of Commons in that year.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT RESPECTING VOLUNTARY REVOCABLE CHECK-OFF
Permalink

IMMIGRATION ACT

AMENDMENT RESPECTING ENTRY OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN

NDP

Barry Mather

New Democratic Party

Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. C-I09, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation).

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT RESPECTING ENTRY OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Explain.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT RESPECTING ENTRY OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN
Permalink
NDP

Barry Mather

New Democratic Party

Mr. Mather:

Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to relieve one of the problems of families with mentally retarded children. It would

make a minor amendment to the Immigration Act in line with similar legislation now being considered in the U.S. Congress. This amendment would permit, to the same extent that the present law permits entry into Canada of persons who are dumb, blind or otherwise physically defective, the entry of persons who are mentally retarded, if such persons are members of a family and are accompanied by the family, to give security against such immigrants becoming public charges. The main effect of this Bill would be to ease, on a reciprocal basis, the difficulties which Canadian and American parents of retarded children face when seeking to visit across the international border.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   IMMIGRATION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT RESPECTING ENTRY OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN
Permalink

FAMILY ALLOWANCES

MOTION FOR READING OF PETITION REQUESTING INCREASE

RA

Henry P. Latulippe

Ralliement Créditiste

Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compion-Fronfenac):

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the clerk of the house now read the petition of La Societe Marquette Incorporee which was filed with him on May 18, 1965.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR READING OF PETITION REQUESTING INCREASE
Permalink
?

Maurice Bourget (Speaker of the Senate)

Mr. Speaker:

It does seem to the Chair that perhaps the Chair should give a short caveat, a short explanation, for the purposes of record.

As recorded at page 121 of Votes and Proceedings of May 18, 1965, a petition from La Societe Marquette, Inc., Montreal, P.Q., dated May 18, 1965, was filed with the Clerk of the House on that date pursuant to Standing Order 70(1). On the day following the presentation the Clerk of the House laid upon the table, in the manner prescribed by Standing Order 40, a report of the Clerk of Petitions to the effect that said petition met the requirements of Standing Order 70. This comes from pages 129 and 130 of Votes and Proceedings of May 19, 1965.

Pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Standing Order 70, "Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and which, according to the Standing Orders or practice of this House, can be received, shall then be deemed to be

May 28, 1965

Petition for Family Allowances read and received". However, a petition "may be read by the Clerk of the House at the table, if required". As stated in citation 343 of Beauchesne's fourth edition:

Whilst a member has clearly a right to ask that a petition be read, it is a privilege, like many others, subject to the approval of the House itself. In case of opposition, the Speaker will put a motion formally to the House.

It would seem to me that the proper time for a request to have a petition read by the Clerk of the House at the table would be when the report of the Clerk of Petitions is presented; otherwise it is deemed to have been read. May I be permitted to add that, this petition having been filed with the Clerk of the House late in the day, a very short time was available between its presentation and the tabling of the report of the Clerk of Petitions. A closer look at the petition would seem to reveal that it should perhaps not have been received, as the granting of the prayer thereof would involve the expenditure of public moneys and, according to its terms, purports to give the Government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money. I must, however, take into consideration that a point of order in this regard should quite probably have been raised at the time the Petition was reported upon, and it may be found advisable to leave the matter as it stands in the present case.

With regard to the reading of the Petition by the Clerk of the House at the table, it is my view that the request should be made when the report of the Clerk of Petitions is presented and the Petition received, since at that time it is deemed to have been read unless otherwise requested. Taking into consideration, however, that Petitions are of relatively rare occurrence in modern Parliamentary practice and that there could have been a misunderstanding in that regard on the part of the hon. Member for Compton-Fron-tenac, who presented the Petition in question, and also with a view of not depriving a Member of a privilege on technical grounds, without creating a precedent for the future I am asking whether it is the pleasure of the House that such Petition be now read by the Clerk of the House at the table. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said Petition be now read?

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR READING OF PETITION REQUESTING INCREASE
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order here. It seems to me that we are in danger of creating a very bad precedent. A little more than ten days ago this

Petition was received by the Clerk. The Clerk presented his report on May 18. The rule in this regard is explicit; in accordance with Standing Order 70(7) the Clerk of the House lays upon the table the report of the Clerk of Petitions. The report was recorded in Votes and Proceedings for the next day.

I should just like to read part of the Standing Order:

Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House and which, according to the standing orders or practice of this House, can be received, shall then be deemed to be read and received.

Since this report was deemed to have been read and received on May 18, surely it is an unprecedented departure from the practice to come along ten days later and ask the Clerk to read the report at this time. It seems to me that this could develop into a practice that is not agreeable to the House if we make a departure of this kind at this time. The document is on record in the correct way and in accordance with the rules, and it has been deemed to have been read.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR READING OF PETITION REQUESTING INCREASE
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the apparent opposition of the Government to this procedure, what I would suggest-I do not know the nature of the report-is that the House might agree to this course without in any way creating a precedent for the future. I can understand the arguments advanced, but without creating a precedent surely the House would allow this under all the circumstances.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR READING OF PETITION REQUESTING INCREASE
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader; Whip of the N.D.P.)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the position stated by the President of the Privy Council may be, and probably is, technically correct. But I think the House should take into consideration the fact that Your Honour has considered all the various circumstances and that Your Honour has said to the House that you think, on balance, the House should do the generous thing on this occasion and let the Petition be read without creating a precedent. I support the position taken by Your Honour, which has also been supported by the Leader of the Opposition.

Topic:   FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR READING OF PETITION REQUESTING INCREASE
Permalink

May 28, 1965