April 26, 1967

LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare; Minister of Amateur Sport)

Liberal

Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved

that the first report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Monday, March 20, 1967, be concurred in.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare; Minister of Amateur Sport)

Liberal

Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved

that the second report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house Monday, March 20, 1967, be concurred in.

[DOT] (2:40 a.m.)

He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving concurrence in the second report of the special committee on procedure, I wish to express my appreciation to members of the committee for the way in which they carried out the assignment given to them by the House of Commons. I do not propose at this stage to make an extensive review of the reasons parliamentary reform is such an important issue both in this house and in the minds of the general public. All I want to do is sketch, as briefly as possible, the nature of the report so that hon. members will have in Hansard at least a skeleton outline of what is involved.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted I should like to suggest that we dispense with a discussion on this report, it now being 2:45 in the morning, following a very long day. Surely we could hold this discussion during the next session of the house.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare; Minister of Amateur Sport)

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen:

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to allow this motion to pass without discussion if that is the general wish of the house.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

We shall now revert to the point we had reached a moment ago.

Ways and Means

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Speaker, as far as this problem is concerned, and since the Acting Speaker was in the chair, a while ago, when I presented my argument, would you like me to repeat it

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I do not think it is necessary. Although I was not in the chair, I had the privilege, the pleasure, and the advantage to hear the hon. member behind the curtains.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kindness.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
RA

Charles-Arthur Gauthier

Ralliement Créditiste

Mr. Gauthier:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that someone is trying to aggravate the present circumstances, but I am wondering if, after a whole day of discussion on agriculture, that is considered as an extraordinary circumstance to accept a point as important as this one.

We have been considering interim supply since noon and we have dealt with the matter of milk. Mr. Speaker, I believe that three or four days' discussion on this point is not too much, in my opinion, since a way was found to debate the unification plan for our armed forces for three weeks. And the house would not take the time to discuss this matter at leisure, for two or three days?

I find the circumstances really extraordinary on account of the discussions 1 have heard.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether I may be allowed to say a word or two for the benefit of the government house leader in respect of the problem which confronts us. I do not know how long the house intends to debate this procedural point. But it is after 2:45 in the morning, we have put in 15 or 16 hours in a day that makes this the longest session in our history, so if there is a problem, why should we not meet on Friday morning at eleven o'clock to give third reading to the interim supply bill?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles:

I was a member of the group of house leaders that reached the understanding that we would finish the business tonight, and the motion that was passed at eight o'clock the night before last seemed to imply that. But it is not crystal clear. It said we would continue to sit in an effort to dispose of certain business. We knew what that was supposed to mean, but if Your Honour rules otherwise, you are the one who makes the decision. But I suggest that rather than our

April 26, 1967

going on to discuss a procedural point for an hour or so, we might consider taking Thursday off, as was planned, meet on Friday morning at eleven o'clock-there will be enough of us here to give third reading to the bill-and then carry on with the plans the government has for the rest of the session.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
LIB

George James McIlraith (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Mcllrailh:

Mr. Speaker, there may be one thing that has been missed so far, in the discussion on this point of order. I should like to read Votes and Proceedings so that the house will know exactly what was ordered. The following appears at page 1752 of Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday last:

It was ordered (1) that the house continue to sit this day beyond 10.00 o'clock p.m.; (2) that

prior to the adjournment of this sitting, private bills shall be considered; and (3) that the house meet at 11.00 o'clock a.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, April 26, 1967 and, subject to consideration of a probable suspension for luncheon and dinner periods, continue to sit in an effort to dispose of certain specified business before adjournment.

The specified business included the item of interim supply. I respectfully suggest that there having been a special order of this house, it becomes an extraordinary matter within the meaning of standing order 75 and we therefore, as of right, may proceed with the three readings on the one day.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
IND

Gilles Grégoire

Independent

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to comment on this question of procedure, there is a point which has not yet been settled by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith).

I should like you to note that I do not want to oppose him, but merely to express my point of view on that procedure on which we are now basing a precedent.

In the first place, in the motion brought in and read by the minister the provision: "Notwithstanding the sections of the standing orders which could be against the motion" does not appear. This has always been the custom and the Minister of Public Works has always complied with it, when bringing in a motion contrary to the standing orders of the house.

So this is the first point which contradicts the minister's argument.

Second, as the minister said: no item has been mentioned, and the minister says that items would be implicitly recognized. But this was only recognized during a meeting of "house leaders" where we were not called and where the majority of the members of this house were not admitted.

April 26, 1967

Third, Mr. Speaker, the motion states clearly: an effort will be made. This does not show that it is a direct order of the house. So I think that in view of these arguments, there is no other solution than to abide by rule 42 of the Standing Orders which was not set aside in the motion put forward by the Minister of Public Works, a few moments ago.

[DOT] (2:50 a.m.)

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
PC

John (Jack) Henry Horner

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Horner (Acadia):

Mr. Speaker, I rise at this particular hour to urge you to consider the position in which the house finds itself. We have now reached the time of eight minutes to three in the morning of April 27. I am sure all of us want to adjourn. I would dearly love to make a speech, particularly with regard to the fact that the government has failed to answer questions put to it in this session concerning agriculture. We have to come to the point at which we should consider the completion of the 1966 legislative year. I urge you to rule that we proceed to third reading and adjourn for the year 1967 at this late hour. Regardless of whether there is a justification for a continuation of this debate I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to rule in accordance with the desire of the house so that we may proceed with the legislation for the 1967 legislative year. I say that advisedly, realizing that we are now well into 1967 although we are still considering last year's legislation.

If the house, and particularly the government, had proceeded with the business of the 1966 session in an orderly manner, which of course everyone realizes they have not, we would not be in the position in which we are now. Mr. Speaker, I urge you that we end the 1966 session and proceed to the year 1967.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

I thank hon. members for their advice on the interpretation of the rules. I might assure hon. members that from the very moment this debate started on the point of order I had no doubts on the rule which applied. The hon. member for Acadia has made a very honest and eloquent speech in which I think he expressed the feeling and desire of practically all members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately the standing order is very specific, and I do not think the order of the house to which the government house leader referred is sufficiently clear or strong to allow me to say that we should dispense with the provisions of standing order 42.

Ways and Means

The Minister of Public Works read the order of the house to the effect that we should continue to sit in an effort to dispose of certain specified business before adjournment. Obviously the effort has been made. It has been a very laudable and generous effort on the part of all hon. members, but it has not been successful. I regret to say that I have no alternative but to rule that there is a standing order which requires the unanimous consent of the house to go on to third reading after having had the second reading a moment ago.

In view of the circumstances I must rule that we cannot go further with the consideration of this bill than we have until now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   INTERIM SUPPLY
Sub-subtopic:   APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 4, 1967
Permalink

April 26, 1967