1956-05-24

Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I want to draw your attention to an article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday. You will recall it was only a day or two ago when the press misquoted you and you had no other alternative but to accept their wrongdoing until the question was brought forward here in the house.
I wish to refer to this article because it makes reference to myself and other hon. members of the house. It is headed, "Calgary's Mayor Backs Nickle on Pipe Line Bill". The section I want to deal with appears half way through the article under the subheading "All Wrong", and reads as follows:
Mr. McKay, wearing his familiar white Stetson hat and avowing his loyalty to the Liberal party, felt that the Progressive Conservative and C.C.F. parties were "all wrong" in opposing the legislation.
At the same time he was not personally opposed to another Calgary Progressive Conservative member, D. S. Harkness, member of parliament for Calgary North, for his going along with his party on the controversial issue.
I want particularly to draw attention to the next paragraph which reads:
"We have three fine Calgary representatives in the House of Commons," he said. The third city member is C. E. Johnston, C.C.F. representative of the Bow River riding, who has been opposing the gas line measure.
I want to point out that the last sentence starts out with the wordi "The third city member", which words are not in quotation marks, so I assume they are the direct words of the reporter. I submit that if reporters in this house do not know the members, they should know them. After being 21 years in this house there should be no press reporter who thinks that I am connected with the C.C.F. party. Further, they should know that I have not, nor has this party, ever opposed the construction of an all-Canadian gas pipe line.



RAILWAYS. CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch (Pictou).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, notice of which I sent him earlier this day. In view of a reply to questions 4 and 5 on sessional paper No. 224 tabled in my name respecting the use of orange peels with colour added for the purpose of making marmalade, that the colour so used contains a coal tar substance, and the suitability of this colour for foods is now under investigation, would the minister consider advising the public to the effect that orange peels so coloured possibly should not be used for the purpose of making marmalade until such time as the results of the investigation are made known?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to my hon. friend is that my technical officers advise me that the evidence does not justify notifying the public that there is danger in the consumption of orange marmalade made with oranges coloured with the substance in question. I can only assure my hon. friend that the matter is being pursued further with great care.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minis: er of National Health and Welfare. Would he care to comment upon the reported s a e' nent by Field Marshal Viscount Mont-o.: c * with regard to the evacuation of ies?
Ion. Paul Martin (Minister of National 1 1th and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, in answer would simply say that any observation We by Field Marshal Montgomery would * oted and considered with great respect, i' en in its context the statement referred primarily to conditions in Europe and apparently he was looking forward to the time when we would be faced with the

Inquiries of the Ministry actuality of intercontinental guided missiles. No one suggests, of course, that evacuation is the final answer to all the problems that civil defence may have to face when these weapons not now in being come into existence. Nor does anyone minimize the problems that will arise in any attempt to move large numbers of the population on short notice out of crowded cities into areas of greater safety. But it is equally clear, particularly against the background of last week end's detonation of an airborne hydrogen bomb-equivalent to ten million tons of t.n.t.-by the U.S. authorities at the Bikini proving grounds, that it will not be sufficient for civil defence purposes to counsel people to take shelter in their cellars. It will be recalled that at the first detonation two years ago a crater was created in the ground 178 feet deep. To protect ourselves against the menace of the H-bomb, something more than a policy of "duck and cover" is required; and that distance is, for the present at least, the only effective defence weapon against the H-bomb. It is because of our conviction that this is so that we, together with the other NATO countries, are testing evacuation to determine the extent to which it can provide an effective answer to the threat of this particular instrument of warfare.
[Later;1
On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Was not Field Marshal Montgomery referring to the protection from the fall-out which would be afforded in basements rather than the actual bursting of the bomb which might fall? Have the officials of the civil defence branch not been advocating the use of basements as protection against the fallout?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, if Field Marshal Montgomery was referring to the dangers of the fall-out, then, of course, there is no disagreement as to what should be done. Obviously basements and shelters at least three feet in the ground are at the present time the known available effective defences against the fall-out. I was not present when Field Marshal Montgomery spoke to the newspapermen and I can only speak from hearsay and interpret what he actually did say, but my judgment is that he had reference to the European scene and that he was thinking particularly of the period when we might be confronted with intercontinental ballistic missiles.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: May I
ask the Minister of Public Works what consideration is being given to the situation arising out of the announcement by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that it is suspending all loans in the green belt area around Ottawa, particularly in the light of the fact that various persons have acquired properties and options on properties in that area, upon which they had expected to erect homes?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: The decision to suspend loans has been made pending the report of the joint committee, which is now studying the operations of the federal district commission. What will happen beyond that depends on the nature of the report and perhaps on other circumstances that might have to be considered at the time. In the meantime, at least one of the builders who had options and had taken steps to proceed has had his loan reconsidered, and there has been an extension given to him. I know of no other outstanding cases that need to be considered at this time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, of which I have given him notice. Has the minister had any survey or investigation made regarding the critical situation that has arisen with respect to conditions on eastern Canadian farms due to the prolonged cold, wet weather that has delayed seeding? If so, has the minister any comment to make on the situation?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I wish to thank the hon.
member for giving me notice of his question. I might say there is a little more in it, as I have it here, than was just read. As to the first part of the question, we have general reports on the crop conditions, of course, right across Canada, but the detailed reports are taken by the departments of agriculture in the provinces, and we get detailed reports from them. The report that came over the radio last night, to which I listened, was to the effect that they were suggesting something should be done, as is the usual thing
(Mr. Martin.]

by the province, and expressed some appreciation to the federal government for having paid part of the freight costs of grain from the west, which does help, and suggesting that perhaps more consideration be given to that. The second part of the question has to do with that sort of thing. That is, of course, being continued.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I may say that I intended to ask the minister a supplementary question, as follows. Is the government considering any plan for assisting farmers in eastern Canada to purchase feed grains from the west if the present serious situation continues with its ultimate result that local crops of feed grain for next winter will be enormously reduced?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course the answer to that, as I said a moment ago, is that we already support the shipment of feed grains from the west to the province of Ontario and the other eastern provinces as well, and to the province of British Columbia. Up to the moment there has not been consideration with respect to going any further because of what has happened in different parts of Canada but, as I said, the resolution which was passed by an organization yesterday expressed appreciation for assistance on freight and said that its continuance would be of assistance. It is being continued.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister state whether any action will be taken to make the six steel and wire fence companies which have been fined under the anti-combines section of the Criminal Code pay, in addition to the fine, costs of the trial and the costs of the investigation, which I understand began in 1952?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I may say, in reply to my hon. friend's question, that the fines which were imposed upon the accused corporations in this case were the maximum fines which were possible under the old Criminal Code section in respect of these offences which were committed while the old section was in effect; and it would not be possible to achieve the result that my hon. friend suggests.
67509-271i
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton WesiJ:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say why the security guards at the defence research board have had their work week increased from 42| to 48 hours?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. I shall be glad to take the hon. lady's question as notice.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether, since the matter was brought up yesterday, he has heard from His Worship Magistrate McKeown, with reference to the case to which I alluded yesterday and, if so, the nature of the communication and the kind of action which his department intends to take with reference thereto.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend's question I might say that in the second mail this morning I received a letter from Mr. R. J. Hayward on the letterhead of the Toronto Telegram, dated at Toronto on May 23, 1956, stating that Mr. Hayward was forwarding to me under separate cover a brief outlining the new evidence which had been unearthed in this case to which my hon. friend referred yesterday. Stapled to a filing folder in the middle of the said brief we found a letter from Mr. W. W. McKeown, Q.C., the magistrate, dated April 26, 1956, addressed to myself. This is the first notice, of course, that we have had of the magistrate's said letter. Needless to say, we shall investigate the matter at once and take the action which seems appropriate to the facts elicited by this investigation.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED IMPORTS FROM POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister any comment to make on the press report in yesterday's Montreal Gazette that 10,000 cases of eggs from Poland were landed at Montreal

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation on Tuesday, May 22, and will this importation of eggs have the same effect on the domestic market as recent importations of cheese and skim milk powder from New Zealand had on the dairy industry?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the matter. I did not notice the article in the Gazette. However, I will make inquiries and give the house a report.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether his department is in a position to give me an answer to the question I asked on March 9 and which is No. 283 on the order paper?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize if the answer has not already been given. After my hon. friend spoke to me about it the other day I asked that the answer come forward. I will see whether it is ready.



RESUMPTION OF TUESDAY EVENING SHOWING OF FILMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to thank your officials for making it possible for us to see the outstanding educational films on Tuesday evening in the railway committee room. The showing of these films ceased for a while. Now we are to have them again. We hope they will continue to be shown. We appreciate this educational opportunity very much.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee of the whole to consider Bill No. 298, to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of this motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to this motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McGregor:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
The house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, clause 1 is the short title clause, stating that the act may be cited as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation Act. It is
24. 1956	4283
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation purely a formal clause and since we have had some six days of general discussion and a few days more of procedural discussion I move:
That further consideration of this clause be postponed.


The Chairman:: Those in favour of the motion-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, are you going to rule that the motion is not debatable, that there cannot be a word of discussion on this first clause of the bill where we always have a general discussion, and on which I wish to introduce an amendment?


William Alfred Robinson: I believe if the hon. gentleman will examine the authorities he will find that a motion of this kind is not debatable and I should so rule.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, that would mean that there is to be no discussion at all.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Do I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that Your Honour will permit me to present to the government a perfectly reasonable request, that they do not carry contempt of parliament this far and that they reconsider this motion.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I hardly find that a true point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On a point of order, I ask you, if you have not already ruled on that motion that you now rule that the motion is debatable. If your ruling is that it is not debatable then I must regretfully and respectfully appeal your ruling.


William Alfred Robinson: My suggestion to the hon. member was that he examine the authorities which lead me to believe that it is not debatable, and I proposed so to rule. If the hon. member can assist me with a brief statement to the contrary I would be willing to hear him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is the first time that there has been such a motion in the sovereign Canadian House of Commons in the last 24 years. I point out to you that on that last occasion in 1932 it was introduced, not at the outset, as it is now, but only after debate had proceeded for some days in the committee of the whole.
I would remind you that it is the custom of this house, particularly in connection with a new bill, one not amending an existing statute of this parliament, to permit general discussion on the first clause of the bill. That is the right of all members of the house.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
Here we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce, even before anyone has said a word in this committee of the whole, rising to introduce this motion which apparently is intended to throttle all effort at discussion in this committee and to prevent any discussion of the first clause and deprive members of their undoubted right to have a general discussion on the first clause of the bill. I pointed out to you that far from this being simply a formal matter or a formal discussion, I have an amendment to move to this first clause of the bill which I am most anxious to introduce. May 1 tell you what that amendment is?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I hope hon. members will maintain order in the committee. I have indicated to the hon. member that 1 wished to hear him and was permitting him to assist me if he had any authority contrary to the idea which I had gained from the authorities that a motion of this kind was not debatable. I hope hon. members will allow me to hear the hon. member, but on the other hand may I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the authorities which I have asked him to give.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I have not before me the volume of Hansard for 1932 in which the discussion is contained, although I had it here the other day and read some extracts from it. If you will refer to Hansard of April 1, 1932 you will find that when on that occasion the government introduced a similar motion it was discussed. In the course of that discussion the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King made biting criticisms of the government for introducing such a motion. It was in the course of speaking to that motion in the committee of the whole that he referred to it as a procedure such as had never been introduced in a British parliament in reference to a money bill. He went on to say that such a motion would make a farce out of parliament and reduce to a nullity parliamentary institutions and the whole parliamentary process.
I submit that that is a perfectly good precedent. I cannot give you the page reference for Hansard of April 1, 1932 because I am sure no one expected a throttling motion like this to be introduced before a word had been said in this committee of the whole by way of discussion. Otherwise I would have had the volume here. In the face of that precedent I make the submission that this is a debatable motion.


William Alfred Robinson: I think I understand the situation. I also have not been-


John George Diefenbaker: Are you not going to allow any discussion at all-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -on the point of order? Why not throw the key of parliament away?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Lock it up and throw the key of parliament away.


William Alfred Robinson: There cannot be more than one point of order raised at one time. I gave the floor to the Leader of the Opposition for the purpose of rising to a point of order and then, as is usual, allowed the hon. member for Eglinton to elaborate on it, inviting him to quote authorities. I must deal with the point of order which has been raised, which I understand is that this motion before the committee is debatable whereas I indicated and I proposed to rule that it is not debatable.
As I said, I do not have the 1932 volume of Hansard before me because I imagine that with such interest in this subject these volumes are very scarce at the present moment. But I have had the advantage of reading about the incident in 1932 and I do not think it interferes in any way with the incident which occurred during the session of 1912-13 on which I propose to base my ruling. Hon. members will find in column 9329 of Hansard for May 7, 1913, that Mr. Borden moved that further consideration of a section be postponed. Then I quote from that page:


Mr.   Oliver@: When the postponement of the
second clause was moved, it was stated that debate on the motion was not allowable. Might I ask what rule is invoked in that regard?


Mr. Borden:: I do not think it is a debatable
motion.
After that, a certain amount of discussion took place and the chairman was obliged to make a ruling, which hon. members will find in column 9338 of that same volume of Hansard. The chairman said:
I rule that the previous question cannot be put with reference to the motion now before the house because the motion is undebatable.
From that ruling, that the motion was undebatable, an appeal was taken, and hon. members will find the result of that appeal in columns 9339 and 9340.


Mr. Nicholson:: What year?


William Alfred Robinson: 1912-1913. Hon. members will find the result of that appeal in columns 9339 and 9340, which was that the chairman's ruling was sustained. I therefore find, on this authority, that the motion made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not debatable, and 1 so rule.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
William Alfred Robinson: I shall have the request reduced to writing.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is now the Lord High Executioner of parliament.


Mr. Nowlan:: Another portfolio he has taken over.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was executed yesterday.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole, when it was considering clause 1 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moved that further consideration of this clause be postponed. Mr. Fleming and others raised a point of order to the effect that this motion was debatable. I ruled that the said motion was not debatable. Whereupon Mr. Fleming and others appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is the following one. In committee of the whole, when it was considering clause 1 of Bill 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moved that further consideration of this clause 1 be postponed. Mr. Fleming raised a point of order to the effect that the motion was debatable. The chairman ruled that the said motion was not debatable. Whereupon Mr. Fleming appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the chairman's ruling sustained.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with Madame Defarge, who presided at the guillotine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the chairman's ruling.


Robert Henry McGregor: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against sustaining the chairman's ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:
On clause 1-Short title.


William Alfred Robinson: The question is the following one-


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that the motion moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is out of order. I base my contention on a clear-cut standing order, namely standing order No. 78, paragraph 1, which reads as follows:
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 submit, Mr. Chairman, that that standing order-and incidentally, I heard no standing order or citation produced in support of the motion presented by the Minister of Trade and Commerce-is a clear-cut direction to the committee that, apart from the preamble and the title, all of the other clauses must be considered by the committee in their proper order. Surely, the proper order is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. In case it is contended that any consideration has been given to clause 1 because the Minister of Trade and Commerce was on his feet for a few seconds, may I remind you of a ruling that was given yesterday by Mr. Speaker on another matter. On that occasion some of us were trying to contend that in 1948, on the motion of instruction with regard to the bill amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act, there had been debate because the Minister of Trade and Commerce had spoken briefly introducing his motion on that occasion. Mr. Speaker ruled that those fbw words of explanation could not be regarded as debate. I could go on
another occasion when seven pages of speaking were ruled-by Mr. Speaker-as not constituting debate. However, I am not relying on that incident. I am relying on the first one I mentioned which is more akin to the one now before us because there was only a brief statement.
That brief statement which the Minister of Trade and Commerce made as reported at page 2411 of Hansard of March 19, 1948, was ruled by Mr. Speaker as not constituting debate. Relying on that ruling I insist that the few words of explanation as to why he was moving this motion today which were spoken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce do not constitute debate and that therefore there has been no consideration of clause 1. I will go further, Mr. Chairman, and say that the motion which you have before you, and which was given to you by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, contains a misstatement or a misnomer. It reads "That further consideration of clause 1 be postponed". I think it is clear to everyone that there has been no consideration of clause 1. How can there be accepted by Your Honour any language of that kind which suggests that further consideration of clause 1 be postponed? Therefore, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of my statement that the motion itself contains a false statement or a misnomer; on the basis of the ruling Mr. Speaker gave yesterday with regard to the few words spoken on an occasion such as this, and on the basis of standing order 78 (1) I contend that this motion at this time is out of order.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman,-


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member for Kamloops wishes to support the same point of order?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the point of order. In support of the point of order raised I want to refer Your Honour to the precedents of the other occasions when closure has been applied in committee in 1913 and in 1917; that is in committee on the bill. I have before me the 1917 volume of Hansard. You will observe that closure was applied on August 27, 1917. On that day the committee resumed consideration of the bill from a previous day; as a matter of fact, it resumed consideration of the bill from several previous days' consideration. Clause 1 was still under consideration and was taken up as reported at page 4960 of Hansard. Clause 1 was considered until page 4989 of Hansard before the motion was made that the further consideration of this clause be now postponed. The same thing
and give the Speaker's interpretation of was true in 1913. But on both previous

occasions when closure was applied in committee it was considered necessary-as of course it is necessary-that there be some consideration before the gag could be applied. There has, of course, been no consideration on this occasion. On the precedents of the former occasions I support fully the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman,-


William Alfred Robinson: Is the hon. member for Prince Albert rising to support the same point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; I intend to submit some further argument on the question. This matter was dealt with on March 31, 1932. At that time consideration of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act had been before the house and in particular before the committee for some two weeks, that con-. sideration commencing about March 1 and continuing on until March 31. On that day the following motion was made as reported at page 1605 of Hansard of 1932:
I beg leave to give notice that, at the next sitting of the committee of the whole house, I shall move that the further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
Then on April 1 the motion was made as reported at page 1609 of Hansard:
That further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
In other words, the emphasis is on the word "further", and there has been no consideration at any time of the title, indirectly or at all. The vote does take place, following which Mr. Mackenzie King spoke for a very considerable period of time and pointed out that under the proceedings parliament would be a mere futility and a complete farce. Incidentally, Mr. King hoped that such an event would never happen again in the parliament of this country. I submit, sir, that on the basis of previous experience, the motion made by the minister is as premature as the futility of parliament which will be created as a result.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Is the Leader of the Opposition rising to speak on the point of order?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Your Honour. I submit that Your Honour should examine this in the strictest possible terms. We are dealing here with a denial of any right whatever to the discussion of a bill, at the most important 67509-272
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation stage of that discussion, and that is at the time when the actual wording of the bill is before the house. This would absolutely deny the whole principle of parliamentary procedure. If it were possible, section by section, to move a motion of this kind it would mean that all that would be necessary for the government to do would be to say, in the first instance, "This is the bill we want passed." Then, they could sit back and wait for the majority to carry out their will. It denies the opportunity for questioning. It denies the opportunity to broaden information. It denies the basis of the life of parliament itself.
Now, for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I submit that standing order No. 78 should be examined in its very strictest terms. As has already been pointed out, it reads as follows:
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 submit, Mr. Chairman, that unless it had been clearly intended that there be some action taken to postpone the preamble, then there would have been no need for such a reference and it would simply have been stated that the preamble will be considered after the sections are considered. The wording of this makes it quite clear that some initiative is necessary to postpone the preamble.
After all, there are sound reasons for that. The preamble might be in a form and in words that did not appropriately set forth what should be set forth in the preamble. It should not be taken for granted that it will be passed over by the committee and deferred until it has been considered and dealt with in the appropriate way.
If anyone should say that on other occasions the preamble has simply been disposed of without any formal motion, that means there has been tacit agreement given to that being done. In this case, no such tacit agreement is extended. In this case we want to discuss this bill at every stage. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there are reasons why we should examine this in the most careful way. It is a rule of law, as it is a rule of parliament, that where there is uncertainty in an important issue, then a very strict examination must be given of the facts.
I wish to place on record a concept of the importance of the discussion in committee, not so that you may examine the merits of these motions in themselves, but rather that the full significance of any omissions under the rules may be recognized. I would point out that in 1913, when for the first time closure was introduced into
4288	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation this house, Sir Wilfrid Laurier used words which might well be remembered by some of those who have paid lip service to his memory so often. This is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, as reported in columns 9533 and 9534 of Hansard for May 9, 1913. I believe these words go directly to the point I am making as to the importance that should be attached to a ruling on this occasion. I quote his words:
It has been stated frequently that the bill has been in the committee stage now for 20 days. I ventured earlier in the day to say that this was neither abnormal nor excessive, but that I could point out instances in England where, notwithstanding the gag, the guillotine and the kangaroo, which a member of this government could pray God we should not have in this country-he will not be able to pray God any more-notwithstanding all these obstacles to free speech, the debates in the committee stage on one bill occupied more than one, two, or three weeks. In these modern days the discussion of a bill in committee is the important part of it; indeed, it is stated by authorities that the most important part of the consideration of a bill has always been in the committee stage. The Austrian author, Redlich, who has written on the British parliamentary system perhaps with greater clearness than any British writer, has this to say with reference to the discussion of a bill in the committee of the whole:
Then, there is a quotation which is contained in Sir Wilfrid's speech, and I shall be quoting until I indicate that the quotation is finished.
We may, then, say that the centre of the whole legislative action of the House of Commons lies in the region of the work of committee of the whole house. It is in committee that the fate of a bill is really decided; its ultimate form is there settled in the clash of parties and opinions -or by the compromises made between them. In this stage debate is quite free; members may speak to each question as often as necessary. Speeches in committee are generally short, to the point, businesslike and simple.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: I hear laughter on the other side. Any length there has been in my statement is the length of only a partial, a very small partial quotation from the statement by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on this very subject when closure was first applied.
Their manner is almost conversational and seldom tinged with rhetoric. The object of committee debate is to arrive at decisions upon special questions of substance and to settle the essential points of detail one by one. The aim of what is said is to convince, not to gain a mere debating advantage. Committee therefore offers to individual members the best scope for display of expert knowledge, untiring industry, capacity for routine work and ready action; many a new member makes his reputation there, especially a man whose claims to foremost rank in parliament are based upon ability and knowledge of political and administrative business rather than on brilliance of oratorical display. On a bill of first rate importance the committee stage may last for weeks.


Then I briefly return to the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself:
Everybody will agree that this is a bill of first rate importance, and therefore it is nothing unusual, nothing extraordinary, that the committee stage should have lasted weeks, as it has already. Indeed, the very observation which I have read from Redlich is exemplified by a fact to which I desire to call the attention of the house. My hon. friend from Welland has proposed an amendment which goes to the root of this bill, which is of extraordinary importance, which was introduced only two or three days ago, and which has not occupied more than a couple of hours discussion. The second clause of the bill which we now have before us is in these terms;
Then I end the quotation from Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He went on to read the second clause of the bill. Mr. Chairman, in those words from Sir Wilfrid Laurier we find emphasized in simple, clear and understandable terms the full significance of the discussion in committee stage of the terms of the bill. No matter what differences of opinion there may have been in this house, there is not an hon. member who can fail to recall occasions on which argument and conviction and sound judgment did result in important changes in bills of far-reaching consequences to the people of Canada. As Sir Wilfrid said, this is not a time when any mere debating advantage is gained; this is not a time when the whole issue hangs on the principle of the bill as in second reading. This is the time when the government can concede-and can well afford to concede-changes in the wording of the bill itself. That is the reason why this subject should be examined in the strictest terms.
Mr. Chairman, you have made a ruling with regard to the motion before you. Nevertheless, a point of order has now been raised which is of vital concern. We come back to that point of order and I submit it is the duty of Your Honour to interpret in the very strictest meaning of the words the provisions of standing order 78 (1) that the preamble is first postponed and that this calls for some initiative on the part of the house, and until that has been postponed then the other sections cannot be dealt with.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important decisions that will ever be made by a chairman of a committee of this house or by a Speaker of this house because unless our appeal is heard on this occasion then the very root of parliamentary democracy would be destroyed by what is being done here this afternoon.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


William Alfred Robinson: A different point of order?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On the point of order.


William Alfred Robinson: I think I have heard sufficient to decide-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: I am sorry-


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Chairman, you have heard several hon. gentlemen from the official opposition. One of our members has spoken to the point of order and another desires to do so. Surely he can be given the courtesy of being heard. This whole procedure is an abomination to me.


John George Diefenbaker: Even Louis XIV would blush.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member for Mackenzie wishes to speak to the point of order of his colleague?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, sir.


William Alfred Robinson: There seems to be some misunderstanding. I asked the hon. member if he had a different point of order and I understood him to nod his head. There has been a misunderstanding.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the point of order which was presented so eloquently by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but before Your Honour makes his ruling, since you have the reference of Sir Wilfrid Laurier before you, I should like to have you give consideration to the additional point that Sir Wilfrid raised 43 years ago, when he said:
We have heard it stated that these rules are antiquated. I do not admit that at all. These rules are not antiquated. They were not made for a day or for a period: they were made for the ages. It can be said of them, as has been said of the maxims of civil law which have come to us from the Roman jurists, and which are the basis of the civil law of most of the nations of Europe, that they are reason crystallized into writing. The maxims of the civil law have been applied to the relations of the people in civil life, and the maxims of our parliamentary procedure have been accepted as the basis of the transaction of business in all deliberative assemblies.


Mr. Dufresne:: Sir Wilfrid was a great
Liberal; there are no more of that kind today.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Sir, these rules are to be swept away, they are to be ridden over roughshod; they are to be put aside, and we are to have the gag substituted for them.


Mr. Bell:: That is true Liberalism.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, before you make your ruling-


William Alfred Robinson: Do 1 understand that the hon. member for Macleod is also rising on the same point of order?
67509-272J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation,


Ernest George Hansell: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Methuen Fleming: So was I, Mr. Chairman.


Ernest George Hansell: And this time, Mr. Chairman, I rise to talk about a matter that perhaps might result in your disallowance of the point of order. There seems to be some confusion in the discussion in respect to the motion being one of closure. It is not a motion of closure, it is a motion to postpone.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a motion to get ready for closure.


Ernest George Hansell: That may turn out to be the case. If the blocking tactics turn out to be what they have been in the past then I am sure this group will support closure when it comes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is blocking the discussion today?


Major James William Coldwell: Closure has caused the
blocking.


John George Diefenbaker: Page Louis XIV.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, the motion does not mean that the title is not to be discussed; it means that the title is not to be discussed at the present time. The motion, if carried, means that we move on to another of the more important sections of the bill. Now, if those who are objecting at the present time are objecting on the ground that it does not give them opportunity for discussion, then by the same logical reasoning they should say, "Let us discuss the more important sections first and then come back to the title".
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am quite confident there is a time element in the bill which must be put through by a certain time. I am not one who wishes to block any reasonable discussion but up until now what has occurred has not been reasonable discussion but has rather been blocking tactics.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, you have now heard from-


William Alfred Robinson: In order that we may have the record clear, do 1 take it this is the same point of order?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Quite, Mr. Chairman. You have heard on the same point of order from three parties in the house. You have heard a point of order raised by one hon. member of the C.C.F. party and supported by another. You have heard the point of order supported by hon. members of the official opposition and you have now heard a point taken against the point of order not by the government but by the hon. member for Macleod speaking for the Social Credit group in the house.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Clarence Decatur Howe: Maybe he was speaking for the government, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I draw your attention, sir, to the fact-and I think it is appropriate to do so-that you have not yet heard one word on the point of order from the government.
Now, the hon. member for Macleod, who is the only person in the house who so far apparently has had the courage to rise and seek to sustain what the government is now trying to do, has urged that this is not closure. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet as this.
I draw attention to the fact, sir,-and it is in keeping with the point submitted to you by my leader-that this is the most shocking, most effective and most immediate form of closure that could possibly be attempted in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Boo.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We have already had examples on two occasions within recent days of closure in this house. The first one gave an illustration of the effect of closure as such because as soon as notice of the motion could be given, a week ago Monday, the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose in his place and gave that notice and then the vote had to be taken the following night.


An hon. Member:: Get to the point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But here the effect of this motion is that if the point of order is not sustained by the Chair the closure is immediate.


Walter Edward Harris: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is not another word to be said on this first section of the bill and you have been reminded, Mr. Chairman, how important to this house are these rights in respect to the first section of the bill. That is where we have the general discussion. That is where we get information. We have already told you, and we have told the house, that there is a mass of information that we want and that this house ought to have and which has thus far been withheld. If you take away our rights on this first clause you deny to us and you deny to the Canadian people the opportunity to get that information without which no House of Commons, no self-respecting Canadian House of Commons can proceed. I, therefore-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised a point of order which in my understanding involves two phases. First, he says that under standing order 78(1) this is not a proper motion. Second, as I understand his point of order,
fMr. Fleming.]
he says that it is faulty in form in that there has not been further consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There has not been any consideration.


William Alfred Robinson: Those were the two points which in my understanding were raised. I am grateful to hon. members for assisting me but I would like their assistance to be directed more particularly to the two points which have been raised.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I had almost completed my remarks which were being directed, you will have noticed, as a reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Macleod, who is the only one we have heard so far in this discussion seeking to support the procedure of the government. As to the second point, I submit to you that in the light of what happened yesterday and what the Speaker said yesterday, the second point is unchallengeable.
On the first point, I submit to you that you could not have a clearer case than this when the motion before you * talks about further consideration. I say to you that there has not been one iota or one second of consideration given to this clause as yet in this committee. The Minister of Trade and Commerce scrambled to his feet even before you had taken the chair and called the bill in order that he might offer this motion to gag the committee. In the face of that, how can it be contended that there has been any consideration of this bill at all?
I say to you in these closing words: It is a sad reflection, it is a sad state of affairs in the Canadian House of Commons, when the government that introduces a motion of this kind have not the courage to stand up to try to defend even their procedure. On the contrary, they are content to go ahead and in silence perpetrate upon a once-free Canadian parliament a foul, fascist deed like this.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Again in order to keep the record straight, do I understand that the minister is speaking to this same point of order?


Walter Edward Harris: As much as anyone else has. It must be evident that one of the reasons why we do not take up the time of the committee is that we think time is valuable in this connection. It would not be necessary for us surely to answer all the points of order raised by the opposition members; else we would never get to the real purpose, namely, a decision on this bill.
May I only say this to the point of order. I would have said what the hon. member

for Macleod said, because in speaking to the point of order raised at an earlier time by the hon. member for Eglinton and again later by the Leader of the Opposition they repeated what both of them I am sure know is not so, namely, that this action would in effect carry the clause. Everything that they said would leave the impression that that was so. We have before us a motion which postpones consideration of the clause, and the clause must at a later time be called and disposed of.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege on this occasion.


William Alfred Robinson: I understand the Leader of the Opposition is rising on a question of privilege.


George Alexander Drew: Yes. The question of privilege is simply that the Minister of Finance has sought to misinterpret the statement that I made. The motion that has been made is to postpone the discussion of this clause, but the Minister of Finance knows perfectly well that that is simply a preliminary step to an overriding closure of all debate in the committee stage.


Walter Edward Harris: If I offended the Leader of the Opposition, I did not do so intentionally. I was careful in the choice of my words. I merely said that this is a postponing motion and that the clause will be carried at a later time after consideration.


William Alfred Robinson: I really believe I have heard sufficient to decide the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is now rising on a question of privilege?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on the same question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the statement made by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance said that we were inferring in our opposition to this motion that it was a form of closure in that it was carrying the clause at this point. I certainly made no such claim whatsoever.


Walter Edward Harris: Nor did I say you did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Finance, without naming people, referred to those on this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Whom did you mean?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am here too, and I am a member of the opposition in this House of Commons.
24, 1956	4291
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fact is that although this is only postponing, if the committee finds that it has to take all of its time on whatever clause or clauses the government lets us consider, we may never get back to clause 1 where general discussion is possible.


Walter Edward Harris: Quite so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: On the question of privilege, the minister referred to me and he did so without any justification. I did not say that this gag motion if adopted would have the effect of adopting the clause. On the contrary, the motion will, in the light of the government's intention, have the effect of preventing the clause being discussed at any time.


Walter Edward Harris: At this moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then you will come along and prevent it being discussed at any other time by your next closure.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I feel quite certain that I have heard quite sufficient from hon. members to decide the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As I said before, I understand the point of order to be this: First, that the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is out of order under standing order 78 (1), and, second, it is deficient in form in that it contains the words "further consideration" when no consideration has been given to the clause which I called earlier. Standing order 78 (1) reads:
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.
In rising to support the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition spent part of his time in a discussion of the fact that the preamble had not been first postponed. In my opinion there is no preamble to this bill and therefore I cannot find any validity in that part of the point of order. Standing order 78 (1), I believe, was formerly standing order 76 in part. In the citation in Beauchesne's third edition, under the old standing order, hon. members will find the following, at page 235:
691. The consideration of a clause may, on motion made, be postponed, but the motion may not be made if the clause has been amended.
That is, I think, authority for my finding against the first part of the point of order. May I point out to hon. members that my attention was drawn-I did not happen to note which hon. member mentioned this-to

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the proceedings of 1912-13, and I find that a similar motion, which I mentioned when dealing with the previous point of order, is in almost the same terms as the motion before us today, and we recall that that motion was found in order by the chairman and by a decision [DOT] of the house.


Mr, Fulton:: But had not the clause, in fact, been under consideration for some time?


William Alfred Robinson: The further point has been raised with regard to the consideration or lack of consideration that has been given to this clause, the one that I called. In that connection, may I draw the attention of hon. members to May's fifteenth edition at page 527 under the heading "Clause under consideration". It reads as follows:
Proceedings on a bill begin by the chairman calling the number of the first clause. The calling of a clause by the chairman brings it under the consideration of the committee, . . .
Further, on the same point, may I draw the attention of hon. members to the proceedings that took place in 1912-13, in volume IV of Hansard for that session, in columns 7535, 7536 and 7537. In this incident, a point of order was raised by Mr. German, and hon. members will find in these columns an interchange which took place between Mr. Meighen and Mr. German. I shall not take time to read the entire interchange, because hon. members may do so at their leisure, but I would draw their attention to the following words of Mr. Meighen in column 7537:


Mr, Meighen:: Yes. Nothing more, however, is done at that time and they pass to clause 3. That is the next thing to do, without a doubt. Clause 3 then becomes the subject of discussion in the committee. Clause 3 is under consideration and the committee discusses it also for a time, and the government takes the responsibility for the length of that time.
For all these reasons, I must find against the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I so rule.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling to the House of Commons.


William Alfred Robinson: I shall reduce the question to writing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is reducing parliament.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the Chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole when it was considering clause 1 of Bill 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, namely, that the further consideration of clause 1 be postponed, was out of order on the ground that standing order 78 provides that in committee of the whole every clause of a bill must be considered in its proper order, and
[The Chairman.]
further the motion was faulty in form since it contained the words "further consideration'', for the remarks of the minister could not be construed as being consideration of clause 1. I ruled that in accordance with citation 691, Beauchesne. third edition, it was in order to move to postpone the clause and also that May, fifteenth edition, page 527, states that the calling of a clause brings it under consideration and also that the debate in 1913 on the enactment of standing order 33 clearly contemplated the postponement of clauses of a bill. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is the following one. In committee of the whole Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, namely, that the further consideration of clause 1 be postponed, was out of order on the ground that standing order 78 provides that in committee of the whole every clause of a bill must be considered in its proper order, and further the motion was faulty in form since it contained the words "further consideration". for the remarks of the minister could not be construed as being consideration of clause 1. The chairman ruled that in accordance with citation 691, Beauchesne, third edition, it was in order to move to postpone the clause and also that May, fifteenth edition, page 527, states that the calling of a clause brings it under consideration, and also that the debate in 1913 on the enactment of standing order 33 clearly contemplated the postponement of clauses of a bill. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the chairman.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the chairman's
ruling sustained.
And the house having resumed in committee:
On clause 1-Short title.


William Alfred Robinson: The question is the following: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moves that further consideration of this clause be postponed.
Motion (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) agreed to: Yeas, 145; nays, 60.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the motion
carried.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Clause 2 is the interpretation clause-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I move that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Do I understand that-


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: I had granted the floor to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I move that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Fulton has moved that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard, in accordance with standing order 29.
Motion (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 57; nays, 144.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the motion lost. The Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, clause 2 is the interpretation clause and is standard in form. It gives the definition of the "board"; "corporation"; what a director means; what the minister means-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -the Northern Ontario section; "Trans-Canada" as the abbreviation of "Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited"; and the definition of "western section".
I move:
That further consideration of this clause be postponed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member is rising on a point of order?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I rise to ask a question. By what rule or by what standard of fair play is it that the minister is permitted to rise first on both of these sections? You saw him first on the first section and nobody else had a chance. You saw him again on this section
4294	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and the effect of this is that nobody else gets a chance to speak on this section. There are amendments that I wish to introduce to this section.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: Boo.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I intend to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre whom I imagine is rising on a point of order; am I correct?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct.


William Alfred Robinson: I must protest this noise when an hon. member is rising in accordance with the rules of this house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to a point of order. My point of order is that the motion moved by the Minister of Trade and Commerce is out of order. In case there are any hon. members of the committee who feel that this point of order which I now raise is a point of order which has already been decided-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I understand the hon. member is rising on a point of order in connection with the motion which has been sent to me by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Eglinton rose on a point of order and I did not have an opportunity of reading the question. May I read the question first? Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moves:
That further consideration of clause 2 be postponed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 just want to make it clear to any hon. members who might wonder whether the point which I now raise has already been dealt with, that it is set out in citation 113 of Beauchesne's third edition that questions of order are decided only when they actually arise and not in anticipation. Therefore any ruling that may have been made with regard to a motion made earlier today was a ruling with respect to that motion only, and not a ruling with respect to the motion that has now been made or with respect to any other motions that may be made as this day goes along.
I base my objection to this motion which the minister has now made on standing order 78 (1)-and I hope before long the government will know it by heart-which reads:
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.
We have, by a process which I shall not characterize because I have not the language, reached clause 2. Now the minister proposes that without any consideration of clause 2 we move on to clause 3. That is in absolute and utterly disgraceful violation of standing order 78(1) under which this house is supposed to operate, which says we must consider these clauses in their proper order.
The minister said a few words about what "the minister" means and what certain other words mean, and I suppose he contends that those few words of his constitute consideration. I remind him and you, sir, again of the ruling that Mr. Speaker made yesterday with regard to far more than this that the minister said on March 18, 1948, in presenting a motion for instruction to the house. What he said then was ruled as not being debate, in other words as not constituting consideration.
I am aware of the fact that in dealing with this point of order Your Honour might turn up citation 691 of Beauchesne's third edition which reads:
The consideration of a clause may, on motion made, be postponed . . .
Mr. Chairman, how can you postpone consideration that has not begun? If there is no consideration, how can you postpone it? I submit it is quite clear that there has been no consideration whatsoever. I was going to read the dictionary meaning of the word "consideration" but surely that is elementary. Surely it is clear that there has been no consideration of clause 2, and therefore any attempt by Your Honour or anyone to rely on citation 691 of Beauchesne's third edition would be to rely on a citation that has no bearing at all because there has been no consideration of clause 2.
I am also aware of the fact, sir, that you might read to us a part of a sentence from page 527 of May's fifteenth edition, which part reads as follows:
The calling of a clause by the chairman brings it under the consideration of the committee . . .
May I point out that to bring it under the consideration of the committee is something quite different from giving it consideration. If Your Honour calls a clause, that opens it for the consideration of the committee; but surely it cannot be said that merely because Your Honour has called the clause, therefore the clause has had consideration.
Further, Mr. Chairman, I submit that if you had any thought of reading to us from page 527 of May's fifteenth edition you

should reconsider doing so, and I suggest that for two reasons. First of all I must say, with the greatest respect, that I am conscious of the fact that when some of us quote May from the floor, we are reminded from the chair that May is an English authority and does not always apply to the Canadian situation; yet there are other occasions when the chair chooses to quote from May despite the objections to May which are offered when we quote from May from the floor.
But in addition to that, my other reason for suggesting that Your Honour not quote to us from page 527 of May is that if you will read the entire sentence you will see how completely inapplicable it is to the Canadian situation. The entire sentence from which Your Honour might read a part, as you did on a previous occasion, is as follows:
The calling of a clause by the chairman brings it under the consideration of the committee, but does not entitle a member to speak generally upon the clause, as there is no question before the committee until an amendment has been moved, or the question proposed "That this clause stand part of the bill".
I read that entire sentence rather than just a part of it so it would be clear to everyone that the sentence applies to the English practice, which is quite different from our practice. What is clear from that sentence is that the practice of calling clauses in committee of the whole in the United Kingdom parliament is that a clause is not debated until one of two things is done, until either someone moves an amendment or someone moves that the clause stand as part of the bill.
In Beauchesne's third edition, citation 669, there is a sentence that is relevant to this point which says-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Would the hon. member give me this citation? I could not hear it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The one I am quoting now?


William Alfred Robinson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is citation 669 of Beauchesne's third edition. I mention this because it brings us back to the Canadian picture rather than suggesting that we rely on an English authority which does not apply to our situation. Beauchesne in citation 669 says:
Each clause is a distinct question and must be separately discussed.
If there is any doubt at all about what "consideration" means, surely it is made clear by that citation from Beauchesne which applies to the Canadian situation, which calls for discussion. I recognize that frequently there are clauses that are passed
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation without any discussion and it is regarded that they have had consideration. That applies only when the house is satisfied it does not need to discuss a matter, that it can pass as having had sufficient consideration.
No one can say there is no desire to discuss clause 2. The Leader of the Opposition amongst others attempted to get the floor. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear this clause has not been considered at all; and because it is quite clear from standing order 78 (1) that the committee should consider these clauses in their proper order,
I contend that this motion which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has now made is a misnomer-if anyone wants to put it in stronger language he may-and that it is out of order.
I wish also to point out that it is one of the duties of the government to let the house know the night before what the business is going to be the next day. I am not reflecting in any way upon the fact that there was not an announcement made last night, because we all knew that today's business would be the consideration of this bill in committee of the whole. But I think we have some right to know at this moment what is going to happen. We still do not know what clause the Committee is going to be allowed to discuss, by the grace of the government. Is this going to go on with clause 3, clause 4, clause 5, clause 6 and clause 7? What is going on? What is the government leading up to in these utterly disgraceful proceedings and this crass violation of the rules of this house?
It seems to me that one does not need to go into all the books, as some of us may appear to like to do, because in this instance it is crystal clear in standing order 78(1)- which is a standing order, not a citation- which is one of the rules by which this house must operate. That standing order reads:
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.
We must consider these clauses in their proper order. I appeal to Your Honour, despite any previous ruling you have made, to reconsider this matter, to reconsider the inapplicability of page 527 of May's fifteenth edition, and the inapplicability of citation 691 of Beauchesne's third edition to this present situation. I ask you to consider the clear-cut language of standing order 78(1), and to inform the Minister of Trade and Commerce that this motion is out of order at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-
4296	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation The Chairman: Do I understand that the hon. member for Prince Albert is rising on the same point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: I do.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out just before the hon. member rises that I find the point of order now being raised to be very similar to the one raised on clause 1. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he cites citation 113 of Beauchesne's tnird edition to indicate that I should deal with points of order as they arise and not in anticipation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman^


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Are we not to have the right to argue?


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Is parliament to be
throttled?


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out to the hon. member for Prince Albert that I am elaborating on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I agree that I must decide points of order as they arise and not in anticipation in accordance with citation 113 of Beauchesne's third edition; nevertheless it is my*duty to point out that I find the point of order which has now been raised to be very similar to the one raised on clause 1. From that point, I must draw the attention of hon. members to the provisions of standing order 34 (1) which reads:
Mr. Speaker may permit debate on the point of order before giving his decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken.
What I am doing at the present time is to indicate that I find this point of order to be very similar to the other one on which we have had a direction from the house. I am going to hear the hon. member for Prince Albert, but I hope he will give me authorities which I have not heard before.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I shall take the dictionary and place it before you. The standing order reads:
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 ask you whether ordinary words are to have ordinary meanings or have we arrived at the position in parliament when the mere say-so of a minister gives consideration to a matter before this house. I have not the larger dictionary here, but the Concise 

Oxford dictionary defines "consider" as "contemplate mentally". Has parliament deliberated and contemplated mentally because the minister dares to rise and say, "Here are the sections; that is enough for me"? Surely we are not going to make a caricature of parliament in that Way. Surely it was never intended that parliament should be throttled and imprisoned by a minister's say-so, supported by an overwhelming group in this house who regardless of argument stand up and are counted. Surely in your position as Deputy Speaker you have the right to consider words in their ordinary meaning. Surely because my right hon. friend is an engineer he cannot ditch, dam and drain parliamentary privileges in one afternoon.
I come now to the larger dictionary where "consideration" is defined as follows:
l- The act of considering, or taking into account and examining, as. after long consideration he declined.
2. Thoughtful and kindly feeling or treatment.
Of course the second meaning would have no application whatsoever to the term in question. The special circumstances here would deny the use of the expression "consideration" in that regard. Another definition is:
5. The taking into account of anything as a reason or motive; a circumstance or fact to be so taken into account.
There can be no other definition of the word "consideration" than in accordance with parliamentary privileges and traditions. Consideration means contemplation, discussion and the weighing of argument, and for you to decide otherwise-


William Alfred Robinson: May I interject at that point-


John George Diefenbaker: If you will allow me to complete the sentence. If you decide otherwise it will be simply to crucify the meaning of the word.


William Alfred Robinson: I wonder if the hon. member, who is a lawyer and who has quoted to me the definition of "consideration", intends to continue his remarks on this point of order. If so, will he call to my attention any new suggestions he has with regard to the clear words in May's fifteenth edition at page 527 where it states that the calling of a clause by the chairman brings it under consideration by the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, as a lawyer you know that one rule that must be followed in interpretation is that you do not abstract from the entire sentence a word which you believe is applicable to the argument you wish to advance. May says that the calling of a clause by the chairman brings it under the

consideration of the committee, but that does not bring about consideration by the committee. In other words the "bringing to" makes possible the consideration, but it does not say that it brings about consideration by simply calling the clause.	[DOT]
To hold otherwise would simply mean that tve in parliament would be automatons. The minister would say, "Now, consider this," and he would give you his say-so. "This is what we want done," and the rest of us would stand up like so many nonentities or automatons. It was never intended that parliament should be treated in that way. This is indeed the sorriest day in Canadian history.


William Alfred Robinson: I feel that I have heard sufficient on the point.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I have a point to raise which has not been raised in any other discussion.


William Alfred Robinson: Does the hon. gentleman raise it as a distinct point of order? I am dealing now with the point of order and I am prepared to deal-


George Alexander Drew: The same point of order, but an entirely different subject matter than has been raised before.


William Alfred Robinson: I am now prepared to deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Your Honour invited consideration of May at page 527. May I reply to that invitation-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -or do you wish to rule without hearing argument?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I point out that under standing order 59 (4):
The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house;
I also draw the attention of hon. members to standing order 34 (1), the latter part of which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker may permit debate on the point of order before giving his decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken.
I am now prepared to give my ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, without further debate. I have found nothing in the point of order raised at this period which would cause me to change my mind on the lengthy reasons which I gave before and which hon. members may find in Hansard if they did not hear me.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, with respect, you have indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: I cannot assume the responsibility of overruling a decision made today by the house at an earlier time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Aren't you going to hear members on the point of order?


William Alfred Robinson: I rule against the point of order made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Do I understand the hon. member appeals?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the house.


William Alfred Robinson: I shall have it reduced to writing. While I am having the assistant reduce this to writing there is nothing further which I can hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will you include in the report to the Speaker of the house that there were members of the house who wished to address you on the point of order and said they had fresh points to make on the point of order, and you insisted on making your ruling without hearing the points that members wished to raise? I have not finished.


William Alfred Robinson: I am going to include something in that respect in the report, if necessary. I understand the rule to be-although it has not happened in my experience before -that while I am having this question reduced to writing we are, let us say, in a state of suspended animation. Until I can make my report no further proceedings can be taken.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, with great respect-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I say that all sense of fair play in this committee is in a state of suspended animation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Smile.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of the whole, when it was considering clause 2 of Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that, pursuant to standing order 78, the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that further consideration of clause 2 be postponed was out of order in that no consideration had been given to clause 2 so that further consideration of the question could not be postponed.
I ruled that the point of order was one upon which the house had decided this day and that
4298	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the chairman had no authority to disregard that decision of the house. One member was allowed to speak in support of the said point of order and, when others indicated that they wished to speak on the point, I indicated that I was prepared to decide the point of order and forthwith made my ruling.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, I wish to raise a question as to the accuracy of the report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition will understand my position. Citation 428 of Beauchesne's third edition is to the effect that from the chairman's decision no appeal should be made to the Speaker. It states:
In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which he has decided. The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the house in the language reported to him and put the question: "That the decision of the chairman be confirmed." No discussion is allowed on the appeal.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I merely submit that the report is inaccurate and that there should be an opportunity for correction of the report on the basis of what actually took place.


Mr. Speaker:: It is customary when the Speaker is standing for no other hon. member to take the floor. I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the remarks he has just attempted to make should have been made in the committee of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, that is what I tried to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Don't make it a sham.


Mr. Speaker:: If it happens that hon. members were not able to make their points in committee of the whole and an appeal has been taken, then the only recourse which hon. members have is as set out in citation No. 1, Beauchesne's third edition, and that is the reason for the report now about to be submitted to the house.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows: Mr. Robinson (Slmcoe East) of the committee of the whole reported that when the committee was considering clause 2 of Bill 298, an act to establish Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Knowles raised a point of order to the effect that pursuant to standing order 78 the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was out of order in that no consideration had been given to clause 2 and so further consideration of the question could not be postponed. The chairman ruled that the point of order was one upon which the house had decided this day and that the chairman had no authority to disregard that decision. One member was allowed to speak in support of the said 

point of order and when other members indicated they wished to speak on the point the chairman indicated that he was prepared to decide the point of order and forthwith made his ruling. Whereupon Mr. Knowles and others appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was	paired with the hon.
member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Robert Henry McGregor: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against sustaining the ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:


William Alfred Robinson: The question is the following one: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moves that further consideration of this clause 2 be postponed.
Motion (Mr. Howe, Port Arthur) agreed to: Yeas, 143; nays, 60.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the motion carried.
24,	1956
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
On clause 3-Establishment and constitution.


William Alfred Robinson: The Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Six o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard. I wish to refer you to citation 4, Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
The proceedings of the houses (Senate and Commons) are governed by statutes, by rules and orders adopted by themselves, and by those usages which have grown up in the course of time and consequently become a part of their own practice or are derived from the common law of parliament by which they have consented to be guided in all matters of doubt.
I point out that, in accordance with this citation, it is the practice that the Leader of the Opposition be given the floor.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops has moved that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard. May I point out that under standing order 29 all these motions must be forthwith put without debate. I see it is six o'clock, so I do leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a question of privilege?


William Alfred Robinson: At six o'clock we had called clause 3 and there was a motion by the hon. member for Kamloops. I understand the hon. member for Macleod is now rising on a question of privilege?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes. I think it concerns the entire house. We do like to commend the press for correct reporting, but at the same time when things are incorrectly reported I think it should be drawn to the attention of the house. A report appears in this evening's Ottawa Journal a part of which is perfectly accurate. It appears under the heading, "Howe's motion Stirs New Protest" and the first paragraph reads:
Opposition members rose with cries of protest this afternoon when, on the first clause of the pipe line bill, Trade Minister Howe moved that further consideration be postponed.
That part of the report is perfectly all right but the huge headline, which I am sure Your Honour can read from this distance, is extremely misleading.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is perfectly correct.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: It is correct.


Ernest George Hansell: I hear cries of "Perfectly correct", but it is perfectly incorrect. The headline reads: "Third Closure in House".


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is perfectly accurate.


Ernest George Hansell: There has not been a third motion for closure in this house.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Before we rose at six o'clock I called clause 3 and recognized the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Leader of the Opposition had also risen to speak and the hon. member for Kamloops moved that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard. The question is the motion of Mr. Fulton that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard.
Motion (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 45; nays, 108.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Chairman, when I came into this house-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Do I understand that the hon. member for Kamloops has risen on a point of order?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, sir.


William Alfred Robinson: And the hon. member for Winnipeg North also?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for
Kamloops, I think, rose first. I will recognize the hon. member for Kamloops on his point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, my point of order relates to the proceedings we have seen in this committee this afternoon and the last procedure we have just witnessed. My point is that these proceedings are entirely out of order and the whole proceedings in this committee today have been entirely out of order. I refer Your Honour to citation No. 1 in Beauchesne's third edition, which reads as follows:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, as Bourinot so aptly says, are: "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner-


Mr. Harkness:: There is no more improvidence than tyranny in this case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -and there I refer Your Honour to standing order 78 (1) which refers to taking the clauses in order-
-to enable every member to express his opinion within limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time-
"Mr. Knowles.]

And who is wasting time? It is the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is wasting time by his repetitive motions.


An hon. Member:: You are.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse."
That is the end of the quotation from Bourinot. Beauchesne continues in these words:
In a close contest-


An hon. Member:: Close?


Edmund Davie Fulton: -when the house is considering a highly controversial measure, the positions of parties are equalized:
Is there an equalization of the position of the parties in this house when time after time the Leader of the Opposition is refused the right to be heard? Beauchesne continues:
. . . the government side may rely on its majority but the opposition is strengthened by the rules of procedure which both are bound to observe and which the Speaker must enforce.
Now, sir, I have already referred to citation No. 4 in Beauchesne's third edition, which says that parliament is governed by the usages and customs which have grown up; and it is a usage and custom of this parliament that each side should have an equal right to be heard. This is a usage and custom which the Chair is bound to enforce and which the government is bound to respect, that the opposition should have the right to be heard, and we have been denied that right today.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Twice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In fact I will complete the citation in case anyone thinks I would be taking unfair advantage if I did not. Citation No. 1 of Beauchesne's third edition concludes:
Should there be dissatisfaction with his ruling-
That is, the Speaker's ruling.
-appeal can be made to the house, and each member will be answerable to his electors and to the country for the vote he gives on the division which then takes place.
Now, sir, what we have seen this afternoon is a complete disregard for the customs and usages of parliament. What is taking place now is the rape of our liberties. I demand that the Leader of the Opposition be given the right to be heard, which the customs and usages of parliament affords him, and that you, sir, and the government end your careers as rapists and get back to a position of respect for the customs and usages of parliament.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: In order to keep the record clear, may I ask if the minister is rising on the same point of order?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, if I say "yes" to that I will be admitting there was a point of order-


Mr. Rowe:: What are you rising for? You had better sit down if you are not rising on the point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Walter Edward Harris: -when, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Ferguson:: Closure.


Mr. Hodgson:: If there is no point of order you should not be up.


Walter Edward Harris: We quite understand our
neighbour from Simcoe North. I hope that as the evening goes on all members will avoid the unseemly display that sometimes we are apt to get into.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Edward Harris: If you will permit me to finish.


William Earl Rowe: Speak to your own fellows.


Walter Edward Harris: I am going to do that. I appeal to government followers to do that and I hope the opposition will do likewise.


An hon. Member:: I hope they take you at your word.


Walter Edward Harris: I hope they do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It will be the first time they have.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think my hon. friend has doubted my word either.


An hon. Member:: We shall see.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, we shall see.


An hon. Member:: As time goes on.


William Earl Rowe: Are you on the point of order?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, I am speaking to the point of order.


An hon. Member:: It is the first time you have mentioned it.


Walter Edward Harris: Let us make it quite clear that the point of order was raised after a vote of this house had indicated that the motion would not be accepted. The same point of order was then raised, which was in effect a further argument in favour of the adoption of the motion made by the hon. member for Kamloops.
However, I want to take the opportunity of saying a few words, if the committee will permit me. I hope not to be argumentative about it, but this is prompted a little by what
24, 1956	4301
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said this afternoon, and prompted by what I think would be in the interests of parliamentary traditions as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Are we getting another lecture?


An hon. Member:: Don't tell us that.


An hon. Member:: Sabotage.


Walter Edward Harris: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre during the course of raising a point of order this afternoon-


An hon. Member:: Always blame the other fellow.


Walter Edward Harris: -said that he wished to know what was the program of the government. I gather from that that perhaps if he knew there might be an effort made to do what we could to dispose of this legislation.


An hon. Member:: What is the point of order?


Walter Edward Harris: I am coming to the point of order.


William Earl Rowe: You are making a long speech in advance.


Walter Edward Harris: All right; I have not-


An hon. Member:: Where is the point of order?


Walter Edward Harris: I have not taken very much time, either of the committee or of the house, on this matter; and if my hon. friends opposite would like to have an answer to a question asked this afternoon I am prepared to give it. I think it will be useful to them as well as to the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the only basis upon which any hon. member can address the chair at this moment, as I understand it, is on the point of order which was introduced by the hon. member for Kamloops. As I understand it what the Minister of Finance is asking is the indulgence of the committee so he may make a statement which has nothing to do with the point of order.


Walter Edward Harris: I am going to speak to the point of order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister says he is coming to that later, but I draw to your attention the fact that no member of the committee except the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been permitted to say a word in debate, except on points of order. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has enjoyed that exclusive privilege. I submit to you-


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the only basis upon -which-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


An hon. Member:: Here comes the axe
again.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Will the member kindly resume his seat when I have taken the floor. I was careful to ask the minister -when he rose to his feet if he wanted to speak to the same point of order that had keen raised by the hon. member for Kamloops.


An hon. Member:: Did he?


William Alfred Robinson: He replied that in his
opinion he did not consider it a proper point [DOT]of order, if I understood him correctly.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: He is not the chairman.


An hon. Member:: You are not either.


William Alfred Robinson: At that moment, and after some interruptions, I understood that he intended to ask the indulgence of the committee to answer a question which had been raised earlier this afternoon on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Indulgences.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We want our rights, not indulgence.


William Alfred Robinson: If that indulgence is not granted, then I must rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say that in view of the fact that our rights have been denied in this house today this is not the time for the government to be asking for indulgence.


William Alfred Robinson: I will then need to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. I am familiar, as are most hon. members, with citation 1 of Beauchesne which is of course the rule reading "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public business in an orderly manner". I hope all of us at all times try to do that.
The hon. member also drew my attention to citation 4 of Beauchesne dealing with customs and usages. I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the provisions of standing order 29 which reads:
When two or more members rise to speak. Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place.
There is a custom or usage also that when a minister of the crown rises at certain times

he is given a certain priority. In any event, it is within the competence of the Chair and I refer hon. members, as I did several days ago, to citations 212, 213 and 214 of Beau-chesne's third edition. Citation 214 reads:
The succession of speakers is left entirely to the Speaker.
If one looks at Hansard I think one will see that the occupants of the chair, not only myself but others, have been fairly meticulous in trying to obtain the pro and con of the debate, as is mentioned in a later sentence of citation 214. The proceedings today are somewhat exceptional.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: They are becoming a standard practice.


An hon. Member:: That is the understatement of the year.


William Alfred Robinson: I assure all hon. members that although the weatherman has indicated that we are having remarkably cold weather, this is a very hot seat. I hope I can allay some of the heat by speaking for a moment or two. At any rate I do not think that there has been any departure from usage or custom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. If my personal conduct in the chair is brought into question that can be dealt with in ordinary course by a substantive motion.


An hon. Member:: We know what will happen to that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You would have the Liberal steamroller to sustain it.


William Alfred Robinson: There have been various appeals to the house this afternoon from my rulings, which have been sustained. A few minutes ago we had a vote under standing order 29 on the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops with regard to the order of speakers at this particular time. I rule now that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kamloops is not a true point of order in that it reflects to some extent on the vote on his own motion. I so rule.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appeal your ruling. I take it that you are ruling that the Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to the floor because you do not see him, as well as on the point of order I raised. I appeal your ruling to the house because I am not content longer to see our liberties raped by the government.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Kamloops has appealed from my ruling, and I am now having the question reduced

to writing. As I said this afternoon, while it is being so reduced our discussion is suspended.


Mr. Trainor:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I explained this afternoon that during this hiatus while I am trying to reduce the question to a form in which it can be presented to the Speaker, I cannot accept any other proceeding.


An hon. Member:: The whole day has been a hiatus.


Owen C. Trainor: This is a question of privilege.


William Alfred Robinson: I shall be glad to hear the hon. member at the proper time. At this moment I must reduce this question to writing.


Owen C. Trainor: Is a question of privilege not presentable at this time?


William Alfred Robinson: I shall hear the hon. member at the proper time.


Owen C. Trainor: Can you indicate to me when is the proper time?


William Alfred Robinson: I must deal with one matter at a time, and I must reduce this question to writing at the request of the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But if the request relates to the appeal-


William Alfred Robinson: I can only do one thing at once.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, before you leave the chair, on a question of privilege I request you to read the report to the committee. The reason I make that request is that the last time a report was made to the house and there was an attempt made to question the completeness and accuracy of the report, Mr. Speaker told us that the question should have been raised in the committee and that he was bound by the terms of the report he received. That made it obvious that the only occasion upon which we have any right to discuss the contents of this report is at this time. I therefore request, sir, that you read the report you intend to make.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I request that in the report you be good enough to refer to the passage quoted earlier from Beau-chesne's third edition, in regard to which you spoke of the necessity of hearing the pro and the con of the debate, and that you also state in your report that the only person you saw today on the first section of the bill was the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the only person you saw on the second section was the Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation and the only person you saw on the third section was the Minister of Trade and Commerce; and that you report therefore that you have reduced the rights of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition to a nullity and that you have overridden the plain provisions of the rules of this house, which require-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that the house hear the pro and con of debate.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I refer hon. members to citation 428 of Beauchesne's third edition, from which I read as follows:
In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which he has decided.
That is obligatory, and I do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why do you apply the rules in this way when it suits-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh. Shut up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I object to the chairman making-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I object, sir, on a question of privilege, to this report being made at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that there are certain forms which have been traditionally followed in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell that to the government.


An hon. Member:: They were before today.


Mr. Speaker:: Would hon. members be good enough to understand my position?


Some hon. Members:: We know.


William Earl Rowe: It is our position we are concerned about.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not supposed to have a temper, so I shall keep it' in my pocket.


An hon. Member:: Vest pocket, just like the trained seals.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, surely you will listen to this question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: The last time a report was presented-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
4304	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


George Alexander Drew: -and an effort was made to point out to Your Honour that the report did not contain a correct description of what had taken place, Your Honour said it should have been raised while we were still in committee. We have sought that privilege, the chairman has denied it, and he is now presenting to you a report which he would not read to us. Therefore the very observation you made is denied by what is now being done.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh. Trained seals.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I rise on a question of privilege. I have a right to raise a question of privilege at this time, and I demand that I be heard on the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I demand the right to be
heard.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Kamloops be good enough to recognize that there is such a thing as a report by the chairman from the committee of the whole to the Speaker-


An hon. Member:: We do not recognize that report.


Mr. Speaker:: -who in turn must present it to the house. The hon. member should know that rights and duties-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -go hand in hand.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no rule, sir, that says I may not raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the first time in my experience that a member has tried to get the floor when the Speaker is on his feet and when the chairman is also-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member be good enough to let the Chair-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I object to your receiving that report.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have the floor afterward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I object to your receiving that report.


Mr. Speaker:: I have never seen this before, and I never thought I would see it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have never seen any proceedings to equal what is being done.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole, when it was considering an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and I demand the right to be heard now, because if I do not get the right to be heard now-


William Alfred Robinson: -Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that the proceedings of the committee were irregular-


Edmund Davie Fulton: -it will be too late.


William Alfred Robinson: -in that no opportunity was being afforded to the Leader of the Opposition to speak. I stated that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Leader of the Opposition rose in their places-


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the only time at which I can raise my question of privilege. I say you have no right to receive that report because the committee has not been given the right to hear the report.


William Alfred Robinson: -I called the Minister of Trade and Commerce as is the custom in committee of the whole, and since the committee had negatived a motion that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


William Alfred Robinson: -I ruled that Mr. Fulton's point of order was not a true point of order. Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Robinson of the committee of the whole-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, what am I to do?


Mr. Speaker:: -reports that in committee of the whole when it was considering Bill No. 298, an act to establish Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, you leave me no alternative but to defy the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: -Mr. Fulton raised a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: British justice, this is.


An hon. Member:: We demand British
justice.


An hon. Member:: A sorry day for the
Canadian parliament.	:'	*


Mr. Speaker:: -Mr. Fulton raised a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I entreat you to hear me now.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I am still on my feet and I will first ask the hon. gentleman to resume his seat.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rely upon your fairness-


Mr. Speaker:: It is not customary for any member to address the house when the Speaker is on his feet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will resume my seat on the understanding that you will hear me before you read the report.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no time at which the hon. member can address the Chair, because I am here for one purpose and one purpose only-


An hon. Member:: We know that.


An hon. Member:: V^e know the purpose,


Mr. Speaker:: I y*it to tell the hon. gentlemen who are maffig remarks such as those they have just y^Cde that I am very grateful for their generosity. I think they are all gentlemen and I thank them very much. I have had occasion earlier to explain exactly what my position is-


Mr. Lennard:: We know all about that too.


James Garfield Gardiner: You don't know anything.


Mr. Speaker:: -when a report is made to the house by the chairman of the committee of the whole. This is citation 428 of Beau-chesne's third edition and I read it earlier. When I resume the chair for that purpose only, why hon. members attempt to drag me into a discussion I really do not know. Anyway, I shall read the citation again. Citation 428, Beauchesne, third edition, reads as follows:
In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which he has decided. The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the house in the language reported to him and put the question, "That the decision of the chairman be confirmed''. No discussion is allowed on the appeal. . . .
This is clear language, and every time the chairman reports an appeal from a ruling in committee the Speaker has no other duty to perform than that which is provided by citation 428. See Mr. Speaker Lemieux's ruling, Hansard, volume IV, 1926, pages 3984-5.


Frank Exton Lennard: What do you do if the chairman is so dumb?
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore I have at this moment the report that has just been made by the chairman as I received it, and I am going to submit it to the house for the house to determine whatever it pleases with respect to it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, standing order 17, which takes precedence over any citation,
says:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
Surely, sir, a rule of the house takes precedence over a citation. That was the point I was trying to make with Your Honour just a moment ago, and I carried my demand to be heard to the very limit because we insist on the maintenance of the rules. The rule is clear. I submit that the question of privilege which I have attempted to raise and which I demand the right to raise takes precedence and must be dealt with immediately. It should have been dealt with before you received the report. I claim that as you have received the report and refused to hear me, my question of privilege must be dealt with now before you submit the report to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the hon. gentleman's question of privilege?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My question of privilege is simply this, that on a previous occasion when there was an appeal to the house from a ruling of the chair Your Honour said, when an attempt was made to question the accuracy of the report, that Your Honour was not able to deal with that matter, that it should have been raised in the committee. My question of privilege is that on this occasion we made every attempt to raise the question of the accuracy of the report in the committee before the chairman left the chair to make his report, the report you have in your hand, but the chairman left the chair without allowing us to hear his report and discuss its contents.
Therefore, sir, we say that you have no right to receive that report, or that if you receive it you must allow us now, because the chairman refused to allow a discussion at the proper stage, to discuss the contents of the report and, if necessary, amend it before you put it to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The report is not a substantive motion. It is not a matter which is debatable and amendable. The hon. member attempted, as he has said-and I have no reason not to believe what he says-to discuss the accuracy of the report in the committee of the whole. If he attempted to do so and did not succeed that is a matter the committee had in its own hands-

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: The chairman just got up and left.


Mr. Ellis:: The chairman turned his back on the chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the climate perhaps is not what we have known it to be at other times.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is not the climate, I can tell you that.


Mr. Speaker:: I know there are some hon. members here who have had a great deal of experience in these matters, and know very well at this present moment I have no other duty to perform than to put the chairman's report to the house.


Owen C. Trainor: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr, Robinson (Simcoe East) of the committee of the whole reports that when it was considering an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. Mr. Fulton raised a point of order to the effect that the proceedings of the committee were irregular in that no opportunity was being afforded for the Leader of the Opposition to speak.
The chairman stated that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Leader of the Opposition rose in their places he called the Minister of Trade and Commerce as is the custom in committee of the whole, and since the committee had negatived a motion that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard, he ruled that Mr. Fulton's point of order was not a true point of order. Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was paired with the hon. member tor Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain your ruling.


Robert Henry McGregor: I was paired with the hon. member tor Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted, I would have voted against sustaining your ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I have a point of order I want to raise.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand the Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order?


George Alexander Drew: No, I am rising to speak.


William Alfred Robinson: Will all hon. members resume their seats? Just a few moments ago the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard was negatived, and I had recognized the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Slewarl (Winnipeg Norlh):: Mr. Chairman, if you recognize anyone, I want to be recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order?


Alan Carl Stewart: I certainly am.


William Alfred Robinson: I shall see the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a point of order.


Alan Carl Stewart: I came into this chamber while you, sir, were in the process of putting the question to the committee. I did not hear you put the entire question, so I refrained from voting; but there were two other members of the Liberal party who came in after I did. One was the Minister of National Revenue and the other the hon. member for Vegreville, and both of them were allowed to vote. I ask that those votes be nullified.
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Douglas Scott Harkness: Naturally.


William Alfred Robinson: Some months ago, as hon. members will well recall, we had a similar situation on a committee vote, and hon. members arrived in the chamber while the question was being put. On that occasion I made the suggestion to members of the committee that I would use these words, "The question is the following one", and then proceed to put the question. I indicated to members of the committee that this would be what I think I called at that time "the cut-off point", up to which time they would feel free to either enter the committee or remain outside.
Hon. members will realize it is difficult to spot these things but I assure you that hon. members to my left transgressed this evening and hon. members to my right also transgressed, and I did not disallow any of the votes. As a matter of fact I did not see the hon. member for Winnipeg North enter the chamber but hon. members will realize it is very difficult for the Chair to spot these transgressions, and I do once more commend to the committee the suggestion I made before that the phrase, "The question is the following one," should be the cut-off point.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that these votes will not be disallowed?


William Alfred Robinson: If I were to rely on my own observation I would disallow-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Do you dispute my accuracy?


William Alfred Robinson: If I were to rely on the basis of my observation, which I presume I must do, I think I would have been forced to disallow two votes on one side and two votes on the other.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: That was my observation, and I did not disallow any votes.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Chairman, I want my vote taken off the list. I should not have voted. I was late and I should not have voted. I know the rules. I stayed out of the chamber when I knew I was late and I should not have been permitted to vote.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Do I understand that the hon. member is rising on a point of order? I recognize the hon. member for Broadview.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I meant to mention that, and I am grateful to the hon. member for drawing it to my attention. I had meant to mention it, but in the tenseness of the moment it escaped my attention.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Take my name off.


George Harris Hees: Several days ago I rose in this debate, and I believe I was on my feet before the hon. member for Calgary South. At that time you gave the floor to the hon. member

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation tor Calgary South and I asked you on what basis you did so. You said you did so on the basis that you recognized the member who rose first. Now, I understand that a minister has no more rights in this house than a private member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was so until yesterday.


George Harris Hees: I understand that a minister has no more rights than a private member.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not so this year.


George Harris Hees: Before six o'clock the Leader of the Opposition rose and the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose. I watched both men very carefully and there was no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition rose more quickly than did the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Leader of the Opposition was on his feet before the Minister of Trade and Commerce was half way up. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, on what basis at that time you awarded the Minister of Trade and Commerce the right to speak in preference to the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: That question has already been decided by a vote of the committee just a few moments ago.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman; on a question of privilege-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of clause 3 of the bill-


George Harris Hees: On what basis did you award the right to speak to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: You have not answered my question.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of clause 3 of the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The crown corporation consists of-


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member cannot ask me to answer a question. The hon. member can rise to speak to a point of order, but I believe the point of order he is raising has
rMr. Hees.]
been decided by a vote of the committee tonight. The question of precedence in speakers has already been decided by a vote of the committee.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, that was not decided by a vote. I asked you-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wish you would examine the statement you have just made that the house has made a decision to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


An hon. Member:: The committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only decision the house made was against hearing the Leader of the Opposition.


William Alfred Robinson: I hope the hon. member did not misunderstand me. I said that a vote of the committee had decided that the floor should be given to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly my point. The vote of the committee-


William Alfred Robinson: I beg the hon. member's pardon. The vote of the committee was that the floor should not be given to the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. The committee has not decided to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Harris Hees: And, Mr. Chairman, I asked you to tell me-


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Chairman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Jumping Jack.


Thomas Miller Bell: We want "Pick".


William Alfred Robinson: Will all hon. members please resume their seats.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be now heard.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out to the hon. member for Kamloops that I cannot entertain that motion because I am quite certain that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was not on his feet.


Some hon. Members:: He was.


William Alfred Robinson: I recognize the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the motion that has been made is a motion which is certainly in order. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was on his feet to speak as every hon. member in this house has a right to be; therefore the motion that he be now heard is in order and should be entertained.


James Garfield Gardiner: He had no right to be on his feet.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: We want "Pick"; we want "Pick".


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I inquire if the Leader of the Opposition is seriously advancing that point of order?


An hon. Member:: What a question.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am advancing this in the utmost seriousness. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not only was on his feet to speak but was asserting his right to speak with the Minister of Trade and Commerce as well as with his colleagues. There is now a motion before you that he be heard. He was on his feet; therefore I submit that you must recognize that fact and accept the motion.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce is sitting down now.


Walter Edward Harris: May I speak to the point of
order?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


William Alfred Robinson: I am in some doubt as to whether to entertain this point of order.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


William Alfred Robinson: But I propose to do so.


William Earl Rowe: Ask him if he is speaking on the point of order.


William Alfred Robinson: I shall do so very quickly, and I hope my report will be satisfactory to hon. members of the committee if it is appealed. Standing order 29 reads as follows:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place.
The moment I recognized the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce was before we rose at six o'clock, and I can assure hon. members that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was not on his feet at that time. Therefore I must rule against the point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition.
24, 1956	4309
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no point of order; there is a motion. My first motion was that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard, and that motion was rejected by the committee. I then rose on a point of order, you received that point of order and ruled against it, and there was an appeal to the house. That was an intermediate proceeding. Therefore it is in order to make a further motion that a member be now heard. After that intermediate proceeding the Minister of Trade and Commerce rose, as also did the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who wrestled with the Minister of Trade and Commerce for the floor. I accordingly then moved that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be now heard. It is not a point of order, it is a motion which you must put to the committee. You have no option.


Walter Edward Harris: I hope I can be heard on the point of order.


An hon. Member:: No point of order.


An hon. Member:: It is a motion.


An hon. Member:: An undebatable motion.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Walter Edward Harris: I heard the Leader of the Opposition rise on a point of order. If the Leader of the Opposition had a point of order anyone on this side may speak to it. The Leader of the Opposition raised a point of order as to whether this motion was in order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, he did not.


Walter Edward Harris: All right, I am coming to that. Now, as I read the rule-


An hon. Member:: The rule, oh, oh.


Walter Edward Harris: The rule provides for a motion of this kind.


Thomas Miller Bell: You can't get out of this one, Walter; you can talk for two days but you can't get out of this one.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, two hon. members rose at five or ten minutes to six o'clock. One of them was recognized by the chair and the other was the subject of a motion to be heard as provided by the rules. Now, when that is disposed of the situation reverts to the former position, namely that you recognize the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order-


William Alfred Robinson: Would the Leader of the Opposition assist me to this extent. He and the hon. member for Kamloops appear to have stated the point of order in slightly

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation different terms. Could I have a clear exposition of the point of order on which the Leader of the Opposition rose?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the point of
order is very simple. 1 recognize the fact that the motion was heard as to whether I should speak. There were two members on their feet at the same time, and every hon. member of this committee knows they were on their feet. At the time they were on their feet the hon. member for Kamloops moved that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be heard. That motion is in order and I submit that it should be heard. The fact that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sat down under the private closure of the Minister of Trade and Commerce has nothing to do with the fact that the motion is in order. I submit that you should put that motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I must decide the point of order which has been raised.


An hon. Member:: Not the point of order; it is a motion.


An hon. Member:: Put the motion.


William Alfred Robinson: May I express it in these terms. The previous motion by the hon. member for Kamloops was that the Leader of the Opposition be now heard.


An hon. Member:: That was decided.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. He was entitled-


An hon. Member:: You are behind the times.


William Alfred Robinson: I can stand until we have order. Some hon. members are saying, "Put the motion'', but may I point out to hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


An hon. Member:: He is all wiggling to go.


William Alfred Robinson: May I point out to hon. members that the basis of the first motion of the hon. member for Kamloops was that two or more members had risen to speak. That occurrence took place before we rose at six o'clock. I cannot possibly entertain another motion to the same effect at this time, as I do recognize the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce. Therefore I will not accept this motion, and so rule.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member has appealed my ruling.
[The Chairman.]
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In the committee of the whole, when it was considering Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, Mr. Drew raised a point of order to the effect that a motion proposed by Mr. Fulton that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be now heard must be put from the chair.
I ruled that I could not entertain the motion in view of the fact that a previous motion of the hon. member had decided the question as to who should now be heard. Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
In the committee of the whole when it was considering Bill No. 298 the chairman reports that Mr. Drew raised a point of order to the effect that a motion proposed by Mr. Fulton that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be now heard must be put from the chair. He ruled that he could not entertain the motion in view of the fact a previous motion of the hon. member had decided the question as to who should now be heard. Whereupon Mr. Fulton appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the chairman's ruling sustained.
And the house having resumed in committee:
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
On clause 3-Establishment and constitution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, section 3 establishes a crown corporation in the form usual for crown corporations appointed by the federal government. The president and the four directors are appointed.


Owen C. Trainor: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I ask if you have called section 3?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, before six o'clock.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The head office of the corporation shall be in the city of Ottawa. The directors receive no salaries but are allowed their living expenses and the usual provisions are made for civil servants who may be employed entirely by the corporation.
Mr. Chairman, I move that further consideration of this clause be postponed.


Some hon. Members:: Boo! Boo!


Donald Methuen Fleming: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman-


William Alfred Robinson: Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, sir, I rise on a point of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) moves that further consideration of clause 3 be postponed.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Why not close up parliament?


John George Diefenbaker: Merits have now been waived.


Stanley Howard 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.


Donald Methuen Fleming: C. D. Howe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me continue:
But since the days of the Great Charter never has it been possible on British soil to rob a man of his liberty, his property or his honour, except under the safeguard of what has been termed in this debate technical expressions, and legal subtleties.
Those are not my words, Mr. Chairman, but I gladly re-echo them tonight. They are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Another great man 22 centuries ago said this:
There is no free state where the laws are not supreme.
Those are the words of Aristotle. We in this House of Commons operate under laws. We call them our standing orders, our rules of debate. With all the seriousness I can command I submit that standing order 78(1) is being violated by the motion the minister now seeks to make, and that this house has the responsibility to consider the strict wording of standing order 78(1). If any precedents improperly established earlier today stand in the way, I submit it is our moral obligation to re-examine those precedents in line with the quotation I gave a while ago from Henry Clay.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge that you give this matter your most serious consideration. I point out also, for I said that I based my position with respect to the invalidity of this motion on two grounds-


William Alfred Robinson: Order. May I ask the hon. member who is raising the point of order

if he would assist me in this respect. Standing order 78(1) to which he is referring was the old standing order 76 and in the "Annotations, Comments and Precedents" under the old standing order 76 we find citation 691, which I mentioned this afternoon and which says that the consideration of a clause may, on motion made, be postponed. I wonder if the hon. member would help me on that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very happy to help you, Mr. Chairman. I thought I dealt with that on the second or third occasion I was speaking this afternoon. Yes, citation 691 says:
The consideration of a clause may, on motion made, be postponed-
But I submit that there has to be consideration before consideration can be postponed. It may be satisfactory to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, it may be satisfactory to the Liberals generally that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given the matter consideration, but for the rest of us that is consideration by only one man; it is not consideration by parliament and that is what is called for.
I wish to remind you, sir, that there is another citation which I think applies very appropriately to clause 3, and to the attempt to postpone consideration of that clause. After all, it is the clause which establishes the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. Without this clause, there is no bill. The pith of the bill is here in clause 3. May, at the top of page 537, in his fifteenth edition says this:
A proposal to postpone the only effective clause of a bill until the subordinate clauses have been considered, or to postpone part of a clause, is out of order.
Do I need to emphasize those words?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Yes, do it again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Is out of order." There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that all the other clauses of the bill are subordinate to and dependent upon this operative clause which sets up the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. What does the Minister of Trade and Commerce take this parliament for? He wants us to bypass the most important, operative clause and go on to discuss clauses that are contingent and dependent upon the heart of the bill which is in this clause.
Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a demonstration of the validity of standing order 78 (1), it is being demonstrated now by what the minister asks us to do. Whoever drew these rules in the first place, let alone our committee which revised many of them last year, must have had some reasons for a rule

such as this. Surely it is clear that parliament is being made a laughingstock if it is asked to consider the subordinate clauses before it considers the main ones.
Let me say another word about the importance of adhering to the rules. Again I quote from an ancient authority. This time it is from Hatsell, who a century and a half ago wrote four volumes on "Precedents in the Proceedings in the House of Commons."


An hon. Member:: Is that the hon. member for Macleod?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I am sorry; this name is Hatsell, not Hansell. At page 237 of volume 2, which is a musty volume to be found in the library, there is a citation which is included in Beauchesne's third edition as citation 818. This citation reads:
So tar the maxim is certainly true and founded on good sense that as it is always in the power of the majority by their numbers to stop any improper measures proposed on the part of their opponents, the only weapon by which the minority can defend themselves from similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules and proceedings which have been found necessary from time to time and are become the standing orders of the house-
I emphasize these next words, sir, for your benefit because this matter is in your hands. -by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can alone be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these forms were intended to check-
And I draw these words to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
-and which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities.
There is another principle, Mr. Chairman, that is involved in what the Minister of Trade and Commerce is seeking to do now, and I confess that I have not found this rule in any book. But I have heard it quoted from the government side and the opposition side time and time again. In fact I think it is a favourite of the Minister of Finance. It is to the effect that you cannot do indirectly what you may not do directly.
Mr. Chairman, is that not what the government is up to in this whole performance that has been going on today? The government knows that unless each of the seven clauses of this bill has had some consideration it will not be in a position, when the time it has chosen comes, to move closure, which calls for a motion that would prohibit the further postponement of any consideration. In other
24, 1956	4313
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation words, it is going through the farce today of getting what will technically be called some consideration of each of these clauses so that at a certain point in the proceedings it will be legally in a position to move that there be no further postponement of the consideration of clauses 1 to 7, or however far the government intends to go.
In other words, this whole farce to which the House of Commons has been subjected today appears to us on this side to be part of a plan to get ready for the imposition of closure, and in working out that plan the government has come to the realization that it might not be able to achieve closure on time because some of the clauses would not have been considered at all. We are therefore to be put through this farce of having clauses nominally considered because the minister has stood up and said two or three words.
I remind you that yesterday Mr. Speaker made it crystal clear that a certain speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in 1948 was not a debate. He even argued that a speech of mine that took half an hour was not a debate. Today we are being asked to accept these proceedings on clauses 1, 2, 3 and so on as consideration, so that when the time comes and the government wants to move closure it will legally from its point of view, but not legally from my point of view, be able to invoke the closure rule. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is trying to do indirectly what the government cannot do directly.
The purpose of the closure rule-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: I shall have over night to think about what the hon. member has said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a few more words to say, but I shall conclude my argument when this matter is called again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And I wish to be heard on the point of order.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I find that last evening I inadvertently thought we had an evening session and forgot to announce the business of the house. I think no hon. member misunderstood, and I know they will not tomorrow. We shall continue with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
67509-273*
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Holowach: 1.	What was the total number of permanent and casual employees of the government of Canada, including employees of crown companies, for the year ending December 31, 1955?
2.	What was the total amount of salaries, wages nnd allowances paid such employees?
3.	How many women were employed in the civil [DOT]service of Canada during the years 1954 and 1955?
4.	What percentage of the total number of persons employed would this number of women be?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
1 and 2. This information is to be found in a document published monthly by the dominion bureau of statistics entitled "Federal government employment".
3 and 4. This information is not available in the bureau of statistics.


WHARF CONSTRUCTION, MACAMIC, QUE.
Mr. Dufresne: 1.	What was the cost of construction of the wharf at Macamic, township of Chapleau, at the mouth of the Lois river and lake Macamic, in 1949 or 1950?
2.	What was the cost of (a) materials; (b) labour In connection with such work?
3.	Since the construction of this wharf, what additional work has been done, on what dates and in what amounts?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Cost of construction of wharf completed December, 1948-$2,957.35.
2.	(a) materials-$1,879.10;	(b) labour-

3.	In 1949, from October 7 to November 10, the upper part of the headblock was rebuilt to compensate for settlement, which had been anticipated when the structure was built, due to difficult soil condition. Stone ballast was replaced in the structure and the approach graded, at a total cost of $2,291.87.
In 1954, from June 21 to August 3, the site adjacent to the wharf was cleaned, and a 12 by 32 foot widening built to the cribwork, at a total cost of $2,790.77.
In 1955, from August 19 to September 13, minor repairs were carried out to the flooring system of the wharf, to the gravel approach and to the structure in general, at a total expenditure of $1,478.74.


AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS, 1950-55
Mr. Hahn: 1.	How many automobile accidents were reported in each of the provinces for the years 1950 to 1955?
2.	How many of these involved damage claims in excess of $200?
Answer by:	Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Trade and
Commerce:
1 and 2. Motor vehicle traffic accidents are tabulated by, or for, the various provinces based on their individual legislation concerning the minimum reportable amount of property damage resulting from each accident. (See statement.)
As the result of a dominion-provincial conference held in December, 1954, all provinces have agreed that accidents should be based on a reportable minimum of $100 per accident.
Information concerning accidents involving damage claims in excess of $200 is not available.


MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 1950-1955
[Stage Direction]
Year	Canada	New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Quebec	Ontario	Manitoba	Saskat- chewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Yukon- N.W.T.1950	132,965'	1,126	399'	5,682'	2,956*	34,300s	43,681*	10,534s	6,523s	9,735s	18,029*	* *1951	199,669	1,488'	951"	7,149'	3,422s, *	82,211s	51,920*	9,743'	7,324s	11,865s	20,381*	215s1952	227,970	5654,'*	1,041<,*	8,519'	4,329*	99,153s	58,515*	10,254*	9,463s	14,697*	21,189*	245s,*1953	235,445	2,692'	982',8	8,984'	4,932*	88,699s	65,866*	12,832*	11,061s	16,964*	22,096*	337s,*1954	143,168"	3,159'	1,128',"	9,812'	6,512*	
*	62,509',"	12,943*	8,631s	15,649*	22,425*	400s,*1955	144,846"	2,2666	8288	10,876*	6,1696	**	63,219s	12,960*	9,048s	17,041s	22,030s	409s,*8
** Not available.
1 Includes estimate for Quebec.
*	Estimated.
Partly estimated.
4 Property damage over $50.
8 Property damage over $25.
8 Property damage over $100.
7	Property damage for accidents over $75-Edmonton estimated.
8	Charlottetown. P.E.I.-All accidents.
9	Alberta and N.W.T.-$75 and over.
10	City of St. John's only.
11	Charlottetown, P.E.I.-January 1 to September 30-all accidents-October 1 to December 31-$50 or over. 15 The Ontario minimum was raised from $50 to $100 effective April 6, 1954.
18 Yukon-$75 and over.
14 Excludes Quebec.

Questions
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 25, 1956