June 5, 1972

LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Question.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Yea.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

All those opposed will please say nay.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Nay.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Pursuant to special order made earlier this day, a recorded division on the motion stands deferred till tomorrow at 9.45 p.m.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR CONTROL OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES
Permalink

CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT

AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED


The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-204, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. Before I put the motions which are before the House at the report stage, I might say it would appear that motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), is defective in that it not only purports to amend Bill C-204 but it also would rescind section 35(1) of the main act and, in effect, substitute for that section a new and substantive proposal. This is the thought the Chair has at this moment. To indicate the authority for the view the Chair takes, subject to whatever arguments hon. members wish to make on the point of order I should like to refer hon. members to May's Seventeenth Edition, page 549, where it is stated:

An amendment is out of order if it is irrelvant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelvant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration. Amendments which are irrelvant to the clause under consideration should, as a general rule, if they are within the scope of the bill be moved as new clauses.

If hon. members would like to assist the Chair on the procedural point with reference to motion No. 1, I would be pleased to hear them.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink
NDP

Alfred Pullen Gleave

New Democratic Party

Mr. Gleave:

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the amendment is in line with the purpose of the bill. It was proposed as part of the bill when it was first presented to this House for consideration; therefore, the government and those responsible for bringing in the bill must have considered this matter as relevant to the bill.

The bill deals with the matter of quotas. That is an inherent part of the measure before us. One of the main purposes of Bill C-204 is to regularize and make legal, by amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, certain procedures the Canadian Wheat Board has been following in administering quotas and establishing the rights of farmers to deliver their product at a given point of time to a delivery point to which they are limited, plus an alternative. This is one of the main purposes of Bill C-204 dealing with control of flax, rye and rapeseed.

I refer to this matter specifically in the amendment; therefore, I maintain it is within the four corners of the bill. I gather from the minister's attitude that he agrees with me on this point. For that reason I suggest the amendment is in order.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink
LIB

Otto Emil Lang (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada; Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board)

Liberal

Mr. Lang:

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make the very brief point that whatever the situation may be in

June 5, 1972

strict, regular fashion-and I do not really quarrel with Your Honour's approach to the interpretation here-we are in a peculiar situation, having the bill restored to the report stage with the bulk of the original proposal as contained in the original bill. I think the recommendation is broad enough to support this amendment and for that reason I would not argue against its admissibility at this point.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink
NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) for the comments he has just made and I trust Your Honour will take that point of view into consideration. It is the point I wished to make. Surely Your Honour does have to look at the circumstances under which this order is now before the House. There was an agreement among all four parties at this session that we would put this bill back on the order paper at precisely the point it had reached in the last session.

If at this point in the last session we had been faced with this amendment there would have been no question as to its admissibility, because it was part of what had been in the earlier draft of the bill and removed by the committee. In other words, all we would have been doing at the report stage of the last session would be putting back into the bill what had been taken out in the committee.

In view of the fact it was an all-party agreement not to debate the bill on second reading again and send it back to the committee, but to resume the matter exactly at the stage it had reached the last time, I suggest Your Honour should take that into consideration. Whatever was admissible at this stage in the last session should be admissible now. Since there does seem to be agreement on both sides of the House that this is the way we ought to treat it, I hope Your Honour will see fit to allow the amendment.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink
PC

John (Jack) Henry Horner

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Horner:

Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the point raised. What the amendment does is reinstate the bill to the position it had reached last session. That portion of the previous speaker's remarks is correct, but the bill would never have passed the committee if this section had not been deleted. It was with the deletion of this part that the committee agreed to pass the bill, hoping it would get passage at the last session.

If one checked the record he would see that another bill, doing essentially what this amendment does, was presented to the House for first reading. I think that was Bill C-255. Technically it might be in order, if we really consider that this bill is now at the report stage of second reading, to accept the amendment. Certainly the understanding reached in committee at the time this bill passed the committee and was returned to the House was that this part should be deleted. This was done almost unanimously, though I see an hon. member shaking his head in a negative fashion. In any event, it was passed by the committee only because there was an agreement in committee to facilitate the passage of this bill without the contentious part in order to continue the operations of the Wheat Board.

I suggest you should rule the amendment out of order at this time and that Bill C-255 should be re-submitted so that the whole question of rye, flax and rapeseed could be dealt with. If this were done I could understand that the

Canadian Wheat Board Act

consideration of Bill C-204 would be facilitated and it would be passed before the end of this month.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink
LIB

Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words in the same vein as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). When the bill was examined in committee, we agreed practically unanimously to delete that clause from the bill and when we reported to the House it had actually been deleted. It was the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) who deemed it advisable to move an amendment at the report stage in order to include the clause once more in the bill.

For my part, I should much prefer not to have the amendment incorporated into the bill because it extends the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. Past experience has demonstrated that powers vested in the Canadian Wheat Board have not resulted in making us very happy in eastern Canada and our argument against granting greater powers to the Canadian Wheat Board was the iniquity of the Board's present regulations.

I do not feel this is the right time to extend the Board's powers to other types of grain and I suggest that the amendment be rejected.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink
NDP

John Stratford Burton

New Democratic Party

Mr. Burton:

Mr. Speaker, arguments about whether hon. members wish to have this matter dealt with one way or the other would seem to be totally irrelevant at this time. What is to be taken into account, I submit, is set out quite clearly in Hansard for May 9, at page 2081, where the government House leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), rose in introducing this bill and said:

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to this bill of which notice is given on the order paper. There have been discussions among the House leaders and because this is the same bill as was reported out of committee last session it is understood that when and if it is given first reading it will be moved forward to the report stage on the understanding that hon. members will be able to move amendments in the usual way and will not be confined to the amendments that were moved in the last session. If the House is of a mind to do so, I should like to have an order which would put this bill at the report stage, where it stood at the prorogation of the last session, on the understanding that hon. members might move amendments either as in the former session or new report stage amendments.

In the exchange that followed it was clear that there was agreement, and Mr. Speaker concluded by saying:

Pursuant to the order made a few moments ago this bill stands for consideration at the report stage.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink
LIB

Russell Clayton Honey (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

The difficulty the Chair has, of course, as I indicated initially, is that it would appear the motion in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is not procedurally in order. I suggested at that time that it does reach back into the act itself. It goes beyond the scope of the bill before the House for consideration.

Hon. members who have directed their remarks to assist the Chair on this matter have not quarrelled with that submission. Some of them have, however, on the

June 5, 1972

Canadian Wheat Board Act

other hand, indicated that there was some degree of consent or agreement among hon. members and that this might be considered notwithstanding the fact that the Chair might find the motion is not in order procedurally. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) has quoted Hansard of May 9 and the words of the House leader of the government, but I would think with respect, that those statements were predicated upon amendments being in order before they could be accepted unless there is consent of all hon. members.

I gather from the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the parliamentary secretary that there would not be such consent. In the absence of the consent of hon. members I would have to find, as I indicated earlier on the basis of the citation in May's Seventeenth Edition, page 549, that the amendment is not in order.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink
NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I am uncertain just how to handle this, but it seems to me as House leader for the New Democratic Party I have a point of privilege I must raise tomorrow with the government House leader. There was no suggestion earlier that consent would have to be obtained at a later stage to the moving of certain amendments. There was a clear understanding among the four House leaders that this bill would be advanced to the report stage on the understanding that members would be able to present at that stage the same amendments they were able to present at the last session, plus any others they might wish to present. This amendment is one that was presented at the last session. It was in order then because it was simply restoring something which had been taken out. I must say, if this is the result, we were taken in by the kind of agreement into which we entered as House leaders which in turn was confirmed by the House.

I feel very strongly that if you do not see fit to accept this amendment tonight, the matter should stand until we have a discussion among House leaders. We get along very well and when the four of us reach agreements those agreements stand. I do not quarrel with the right of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard) to oppose the matter in principle, but there is not any doubt in my mind concerning the agreement reached. If I may say so, one reason the bill concerning the Northern Canada Power Commission is still standing as a notice and has not been proceeded with is that the same type of agreement sought in respect of it was not reached. But in the case of Bill C-204 the agreement was clear and iron-clad. If Your Honour feels that the procedural niceties do not allow the Chair to accept it, I suggest it be allowed to stand until the House leaders clear the matter.

Topic:   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DETERMINATION OF PAYMENT FOR WHEAT-EXTENSION OF APPLICATION TO FLAXSEED, RYE AND RAPESEED
Permalink

June 5, 1972