Well, I know it is now 5.15 p.m., and if I am going to make my point I have two more pages to read and it is not my intention to read them simply because hon. members like to listen to me reading.
After what I read from Mr. Ilsley, the then member for Calgary West, Mr. Smith, did indicate he was opposed to the motion. Mr. Ilsley then asked a question and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre replied to that question, but it is interesting to note that when Mr. Ilsley asked the question he said:
With the consent of the house, may I ask the hon. member a question? What were his reasons for thinking that the committee would not have the power to propose this amendment in the absence of such a direction from the House of Commons?
This proves that he was directing himself to the value and usefulness of the motion, and was therefore relating his remarks to the order. Then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated what his views were on the matter. Mr. Ilsley then rose and said:
I can speak again only with the consent of the house. What I intended to say the other day was that I thought amendments to the various provisions of the orders in council would be in order-
And so on. Then the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) took part in the debate in order to indicate his objection to the amendment because, as he said:
. . . as it is set out now ... it limits the part of section 4 that could be amended by the committee.
Then the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) gave the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The then member for Calgary West, Mr. Smith, indicated his agreement with the hon. member for Dauphin, and the hon. member for Dauphin spoke again. The then member for Welland,
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Ontario, Mr. Mitchell, asked a question. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke again and was interrupted by the then member for New Westminster, now Senator Reid, who rose on a point of order and said:
It seems to me that it would be out of order before the bill goes to second reading to give a restrictive direction to the committee. This amendment would restrict it to section 4 and I claim that that is entirely out of order. Surely to tell members of the committee of the whole after the bill passes second reading that we are to be restricted to section 4 is out of order.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), who at that time was the member for Vancouver East, spoke to the matter; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke to the point of order, and the matter came to a decision.
Now I think if hon. members want to be agreeable to what I consider to be a reasonable interpretation of what took place on that occasion they will agree the motion was not considered a debatable one. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke at great length to make his point that his motion for instruction was in order and necessary. The then minister of justice indicated that in his view the motion was an empty gesture but that he would not oppose it. Then representatives of other parties in the house indicated their stand in expectation of the vote which was about to take place. That was done on behalf of the Conservative party by the then member for Calgary West, Mr. Smith, and the then member for Grey North, Mr. Case, and on behalf of the Social Credit party by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low).
A point of order was then raised and the matter came to a vote which was decided in the negative and the division appears on page 2213.
I think hon. members will give me credit for having carefully considered the precedents they have quoted to me. I have to take the view that considering what took place on that occasion when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved his motion to which the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Ilsley, spoke, that to take the view that this motion whenever it is proposed is debatable is taking a very narrow interpretation of what the precedents may be; but what is more important is the standing order. Standing order No. 32 says:
The following motions are debatable-
Then it lists the motions that are debatable, and it concludes with paragraph 2 which says:
All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment.
The motion which is now before the house is one which is not listed as being a debatable
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation motion in standing order 32 and I take it, and I so rule, that this motion is not debatable. Is the house ready for the question?
Subtopic: CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.