May 24, 1956 (22nd Parliament, 3rd Session)

CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is my submission that this motion now moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is out of order on at least two counts. My first submission I shall state very briefly, because it is the same one I made with respect to two other motions the minister has moved in the committee this afternoon.
Before reminding you, Mr. Chairman, of my contention in that regard may I suggest that a great man once said that a precedent which has never been re-examined cannot be conclusive. I submit the fact that a precedent has been set-indeed set twice today- does not bind this committee now that we have at another stage another motion. After all, we have not previously had a motion that the further consideration of clause 3 of this bill be postponed. I therefore submit that it is a new motion and that it is the duty of Your Honour and of the committee to consider it in the light of the rules. If there are any previous rulings or previous votes of the house the other way I submit that it is the part of wisdom and responsibility that those precedents be re-examined.
4312 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I recognize the fact, Mr. Chairman, that as a result of my pressing the wording of standing order 78 (1) it may be said by some that I am pressing technicalities. But the wording is extremely clear:
78. (1) In proceedings in committee of the whole house upon bills, the preamble is first postponed, and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order; the preamble and title to be last considered.
I urge those words, that the committee is to consider the clauses of the bill in their proper order. I know there are those who would say that one is pressing a technicality with regard to this matter, but may I quote these words:
It will be argued, perhaps, that the reasons which I advance are purely legal subtleties. Name them as you please, "technical expressions", "these legal subtleties", it matters little; for my part,
I say that these technical reasons, these legal subtleties are the guarantees of British liberty. Thanks to these technical expressions, these legal subtleties, no person on British soil can be arbitrarily deprived of what belongs to him. There was a time when the procedure was much simpler than it is today, when the will alone of one man was sufficient to deprive another of his liberty, his property, his honour and all that makes life dear.

Topic:   NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   CONSTITUTION OF CROWN COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT PIPE LINE, MAKE SHORT-TERM LOANS, ETC.
Full View