July 17, 1969

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.

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, I rise for the purpose of making a motion under the authority of Standing Order 42(1). Your Honour has in recent days had to deal with a number of motions tendered under Standing Order 43. This one is under Standing Order 42(1), which reads in part as follows:

Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; but this rule shall not apply to bills after their introduction, or to private bills, or to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house.

My motion will have to do with the time of the adjournment of the house this day. May I point out that citation 51 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, to be found on page 40, reads as follows:

No notice is required for a motion relating to "the times of meeting or adjournment of the house."

There appears in parenthesis "S.O. 45", which referred to Standing Order 45. That was its number when this book was published but it is now Standing Order 42(1). I continue with citation 51:

The word "times" is translated by "heures" in the French version of S.O. 41. It seems therefore that if a motion does not relate to the hour but to the day on which the house is to sit, a notice must be given. See decision given by Speaker Rhodes on May 21st, 1920.

There are a few more words in that citation, and the concluding sentence is:

The reason why no notice is required is that Standing Order 41 which provides for notices to be given says that the rule shall not apply "to the times of meeting or adjournment of the house".

I would also draw Your Honour's attention to a ruling made in the course of a debate

which took place in the house on Thursday, December 20, 1951. It just so happens that the motion made that day was in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Its

procedural validity was contested by certain members of the house who were not very friendly to us on that occasion. Times have changed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

When the Conservatives objected to the validity of the amendment I moved that day, a point of order was raised and Mr. Speaker Macdonald made a ruling which appears at pages 2257 and 2258 of Hansard for December 20, 1951. My motion on that occasion-it was perhaps a bit novel-proposed that the hours of sitting for that day be altered, specifically that we not rise for the luncheon or dinner breaks and that we sit, if necessary, after the evening time of adjournment.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Carried.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

am not moving that one today.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

When the matter came to a head procedurally, Mr. Speaker Macdonald made a very clear ruling. He went back to Mr. Speaker Rhodes and read the Standing Order in both languages, and so on. He made it clear that if my motion had had to do with days of sitting it would have required notice, but since it dealt only with the hours of sitting on that day, and that day only, it was in order. Mr. Speaker Ross Macdonald so ruled at the top of page 2258 of Hansard for December 20, 1951.

I have carried out further research on this matter and I find there have been other such occasions and it has always been held that if an effort is being made to determine the days the house might sit, 48 hours notice must be given, or it requires unanimous consent; but a motion dealing only with the hours of sitting on that day does not require

Adjournment of the House notice. That provision is still in our rules under Standing Order 42(1) which I read a few moments ago.

* (2:10 p.m.)

It is on the basis of these precedents that I wish to make a motion which I shall read in a moment. I want to speak briefly to it because, under the Standing Order, it is a debatable motion. Therefore, I do not want to present it in such a way that I will have to resume my seat. We can deal with points of order if necessary, but in any case my motion reads: That the house adjourn this day at four o'clock p.m. I point out, although it is crystal clear in the wording, that this relates only to this day's sitting; it relates only to the question of the hour of adjournment. This is fully covered in Standing Order 42(1). My purpose in making this motion at this time is also clear, I hope, namely, that it will provide an opportunity for us to try to cope in a different way from what we have been doing with the problem with which the house is now seized.

The president of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) in statements made to the press yesterday, which surprised some of us but which I accept at their face value, declared that he found it difficult to arrange a meeting with the opposition house leaders to discuss the procedural battle in which we are engaged at the present time. I practically live on the hill and I do not see any difficulty in being called to a meeting. I am ready to attend a meeting with the other house leaders at any time. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a good idea, that it would be common sense, and that the country would approve of this course, if we were to adjourn the house this afternoon at four o'clock so that the government house leader can call a meeting of the house leaders, or even go further and call an informal meeting of the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, to see whether, within the confines of such a meeting, we can come to some understanding on the problem that is before the house.

I recognize, from the communications we seem to be having through the press, that our positions seem to be irreconcilable. The President of the Privy Council says that he wants the principle of rule 75c without question. We on this side say that we want rule 75c to be dropped. However, I submit that our positions are no more irreconcilable than they were in December on rule 16a. Yet in December, as a result of a conference of several hours, we did come to an understanding

on the basis of which the members of this house went home for Christmas. I submit that that conference produced more than that. It produced a package of rules under which the house has operated very well for the past six months. I believe that by holding such a conference this afternoon we might be able to achieve more than we can by carrying on a debate in which we have reached an impasse and in which neither side seems to be giving in at all.

That is my main reason for the motion. Some hon. members may have thought I was moving that we adjourn at four o'clock because it is such a hot day. That is an ancillary reason, and I am sure that the staff in this place would be delighted if we adopted this course. I would also point out that I have fixed the time so as to allow for a short debate, if that is necessary, and also time for the question period. I would not quarrel if someone wanted me to change the motion to five o'clock so that we could have the question period and a somewhat longer time for the debate, but I do think it makes common sense to follow a course of this kind.

This is my response to the appeal that the President of the Privy Council made through the press yesterday and this morning, namely, that he would like to meet with us. I did not think it was necessary to go about it in this way, but this is my response, the suggestion that the house not carry on this debate today, a debate which seems to be getting nowhere, but that there be an appropriate kind of meeting in the office of the President of the Privy Council or, if necessary, I would invite the meeting to be held in mine.

Therefore I have pleasure in moving, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):

That the house adjourn this day at four o'clock p.m.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
?

Mr. Speaker-Mr. Speaker@

Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order in connection with the proposed motion?

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

No, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

The motion has not yet been put to the house. Although I may have some doubt concerning the motion, in view of the fact that it has not been questioned procedurally I will put it to the house at this time.

July 17. 1969 COMMONS

The motion, moved by Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre, and seconded by Mr. Winch, is that this house adjourn this day at four o'clock p.m.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

Mr. Speaker, I was rising originally to support the admissibility of the motion.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
IND

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Independent

Mr. Speaker:

Perhaps the hon. member might now like to speak to the motion itself.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

Mr. Speaker, without wishing to appear to curry any particular favour may I say that perhaps this motion had a happy origin in the gathering Your Honour convened yesterday afternoon where people were able to, shall we say, get together and look at things from a slightly different point of view. So we would hope, having Your Honour's happy inspiration as a precedent, that the house would now take the example of the initiative of Your Honour, and of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in moving the motion.

I think it is quite clear to Your Honour and to hon. members that this would appear to be a logical outcome of the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition in a press conference on Monday in which he indicated there was some approach, some modification or some form of agreement that could be reached on certain terms. The reply yesterday by the government house leader was to another version, but I do not consider that the versions are self-excluding and I would urge hon. members, particularly on the government side, to accept this opportunity to convene a meeting to see what kind of a meeting of minds there might be to resolve this problem.

I am sure, on the basis perhaps of something that was indicated by some ministers privately and indicated by house leaders or representatives of the various opposition parties, that there is some common ground on which to move. After all, this is the way a consensus may be arrived at. This is the way i solution is sometimes found to a problem that all too often appears impossible of rationalization. After all, the opposition is composed of reasonable men and so is the government.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink
PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):

Mr. Speaker, they do not all wear horns and have forked tails-just some of them. In any event, let us see whether an attempt can be made at

Adjournment of the House this time. I think we would be much poorer in our attempts to resolve this matter if we did not make this effort because, if there is not to be a solution, at least no one can then point the finger at members of the house and say that they did not really try to explore all avenues. To that extent I would support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   MOTION UNDER STANDING ORDER 42(1) TO ADJOURN AT 4 P.M.
Permalink

July 17, 1969