1956-05-23

Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement, the text of which has been agreed to by the governments of Canada and the United States for simultaneous release today. It is as follows:
The Canadian and United States governments have decided to examine together the subject of waters which flow across the international boundary between the two countries.
The last time both governments examined this matter thoroughly together was before the conclusion of the boundary waters treaty of 1909. During the 46 years which have elapsed since its ratification, the international joint commission, which was established by the treaty, has worked with outstanding success in solving water problems within the framework of this treaty.
It has recently appeared, however, that the development of the resources of such basins as the Saint John, the Columbia and the Yukon requires, among other things, the solution of various complicated legal, economic and engineering questions. In agreeing to examine the matter of waters which cross the boundary, the two governments realize that there may be no easy or quick answer to the problems which are arising today in such areas and that the studies may reveal that the boundary waters treaty of 1909 is sufficiently broad to meet present problems. The two governments believe, however, that a full and confidential exchange of views may contribute to the resolution of these problems and it is in this spirit that the discussions have been agreed to. At the same time, the two governments desire that the international joint coffimission shall press forward its studies under the Columbia river basin reference of 1944 and the other similar references which it has under consideration.
I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that I have written to the premiers of the provinces that are directly concerned with waters crossing the boundary and I have sent them copies of the announcement. I have told them that I will welcome any views or suggestions they may wish to make concerning the subject matter of the forthcoming discussions and I have added that I will be in touch with them further as matters develop.
I might also add that, in response to an invitation extended by the premier of British Columbia, I shall visit Victoria for discussions with Mr. Bennett on water problems on June 5.
67509-269i


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the house which department of the government will be carrying on these negotiations with the United States? The minister did not tell us whether it is to be a governmental body or one or more of the departments or in what manner these negotiations would be taking place. Could the minister also tell us whether the provincial governments will be allowed to have representatives sitting in on any of these conferences?


Jean Lesage: The intention, Mr. Speaker, is to have a Canadian team for discussions with a United States team.


Howard Charles Green: Would that be at the ministerial level?


Jean Lesage: It will be at first at the official level, for sure, sir, but the composition of the discussion team is not yet definite. There will be representatives of various departments of government on the team. We have asked the United States if there would be representatives of the states on their discussion team and they have told us there would not be. That is why I am securing the opinion of the premiers of the provinces interested and also that is why I am going to have full discussions with the premier of British Columbia on June 5.


Howard Charles Green: But no official representatives are to sit in on the conference?


Jean Lesage: The studies will be made here by the interdepartmental committee on water use which is composed of representatives of various departments.


Howard Charles Green: Which departments?


Jean Lesage: There is a long series; I believe it is six or seven departments, and also the international joint commission. The officials of the various provinces would have discussions with the members of this interdepartmental committee.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if General McNaughton will be a member of the team or an officer of the governmental team?


Jean Lesage: General McNaughton attends the meetings of the interdepartmental committee on water use.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will he attend?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Lesage: General McNaughton usually attends all meetings of the interdepartmental committee.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this is a most welcome announcement. Could the minister tell the house when the discussions between Canada and the United States are likely to commence?


Jean Lesage: It is expected, sir, that the question will be studied fully in the United States and in Canada for some time but during that time we expect that we will have informal communications between the two governments in preparation for the formal discussions later.
[Later:!
On the orders of the day:


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources arising out of the statement he made earlier today with regard to the discussions between the government of Canada and that of the United States in connection with waters which cross the international boundary. Will these discussions include the question of flood waters and soil erosion?


Jean Lesage: I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker. 1 shall look into the matter and try to give a more extensive reply, but I do not believe so.



LATIN AMERICA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the government has under consideration any requests from Latin American countries other than Colombia for Sabre jet fighter aircraft?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Not at this time.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. In view of the question raised this morning as to my eligibility to vote on the measure before the house at that time, I rise to request that if possible the committee on

privileges and elections be convened to investigate the matter in order that any remaining doubt as to my integrity and lack of personal financial interest in the matter may be fully cleared away.


Mr. Speaker:: The committee on privileges and elections is a standing committee of this house. No doubt the chairman of that committee has taken note of the hon. gentleman's request and after consulting with him and others who are members of the committee whatever arrangements are required might be made.



MR. STARR    REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot; OF MAY 21

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which has to do with an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail of Monday, May 21, 1956. It is a short article entitled "How to be Very, Very Audible" and it reads:
Members of parliament have to be eye-catching if they want to speak to the house.
It is this quality, rather than political affiliation, which determines an M.P.'s voice in national affairs, Speaker of the House Beaudoin explained Saturday.
Addressing the Ukrainian national federation's annual convention in Toronto, Mr. Beaudoin denied that his deputy, William Robinson, neglected the rights of opposition speakers in the great pipe line debate.
"It is a question of who catches your eye, he said. "We weren't trying to be partial."
Mr. Speaker, I was present at that meeting along with other hon. members of the house and I heard your speech with a great deal of interest. I wish to say at this time that I did not hear you make any such statement in your speech and I therefore assert that the statements in this article attributed to you are not true.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege merely to confirm what the hon. member has just said. I was present on that occasion and heard you make a thoughtful, courteous and informative speech which did not contain any of the words reported in the Globe and Mail.


Mr. Charles E. Rea (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I was present at the same meeting and I concur in what hon. members have said.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. members who have come to my rescue, so to speak. It reminds me of an article which I read in a book on procedure which stated that if the Speaker were faced with any difficulty members would rise immediately to his defence. This has been done in the true traditional form.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


CANADIAN FINE ARTS


Mr. Holowach: 1.	What amounts have been contributed by the federal government to individuals, institutions or organizations, for the promotion of drama, music or other fine arts, during the past five years?
2.	Has any contribution ever been made during this period in the nature of grants, travelling or other expenses outside of Canada for such a purpose?
3.	What is the total amount spent during the years, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and to date in 1956, for acquisition of works of art (a) outside Canada; (b) in Canada?



LAND PURCHASES


Mr. Balcer: 1.	Have any parcels of land been purchased by the federal government from Dr. Leon Groleau, of Sherbrooke, Quebec, during the years 1948, 1949, 1950?
2.	If so, what is the description of each parcel purchased and what amount was paid in each instance?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has yet made an announcement with regard to the filing of the report of the Fauteux commission.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Yes. I announced some two or three weeks ago that we would be filing the Fauteux commission report as soon as it had been printed in English and French.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can the minister say when that will be?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It will be a matter of days now.



MOONEY AND STOFFELS


[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 in connection with a Canadian Press dispatch dated today relative to two men, Daniel Mooney and Donald Stoffels, who were convicted in Toronto and are at present in Kingston penitentiary serving a two-year sentence. Has the minister received a letter from Magistrate McKeown to the effect that according to the evidence now available these men are indeed innocent? If so, will he immediately have an investigation launched into the question
Inquiries oj the Ministry with a view to having a free pardon granted if the facts are as Magistrate McKeown has stated?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The news-gathering facilities of our press are so efficient that the news of this letter has got into the newspapers before the letter itself has actually reached me. I prefer to withhold comment until I have received the letter and learned from it what it is that I would be talking about.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government yet reached a decision as to whether any action will be taken with respect to the report concerning an alleged combine in the manufacture, sale and distribution of beer in Canada?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained on previous occasions, the preparation of an opinion has been delayed for the reasons which I then gave in detail. We are unable to reach a decision on this matter until we receive that opinion, which we expect shortly.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: May I
thank hon. members for their recognition and also for the kind expressions of sympathy during my recent illness. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works why greater use has not been made of building stone in the exterior walls of the new Winnipeg post office.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: First of all let me say that I am delighted, as all hon. members are, to see the hon. member for Winnipeg South back in his seat and apparently in good health. I presume the hon. member in his question referred to the large new post office nearing completion in Winnipeg. If that is the case, then I think he will agree with me that the building incorporates the materials which will make it a great credit to that fine city of Winnipeg.


Owen C. Trainor: I do not entirely agree with the minister in that respect. As a matter of

Inquiries of the Ministry fact, I passed this building quite recently, and it conveys the impression of a rather imposing warehouse. The exterior walls are built of brick, and the minister no doubt is aware that within 25 miles of the city of Winnipeg, in the constituency of my hon. friend from Springfield, is a supply of the most beautiful building stone in the world. If any members are in doubt about that, they have only to step out into the corridor-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to have to remind the hon. member that, while he unfortunately was away, as we all know, because of sickness, the rules which were in effect before he left are still in effect.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: May I ask a question of the Postmaster General? An order for return of papers was passed in my name on April 16. I wonder if the Postmaster General would be good enough to make inquiries as to when I shall get those papers.


Hon. Hugues Lapoinie (Postmasier General):: I should be very glad to make inquiries. As a matter of fact, I was under the impression they had been tabled, but I shall look into it.



AIRPORTS-EXPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY, VIRDEN, MAN.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister inform the house when we may expect to receive the documents passed by motion on April 30 dealing with the case of August Fontana?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, this represents a great number of documents, but I will look into the matter.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. On June 23 of last year I asked a question in regard to the use of new lumber every time there is a platform built in front of this building. At that time the minister said that a platform was being


designed that could be used over and over again. I notice that they are using new lumber again at the present time. I wonder whether the minister has the newly designed platform ready.


Robert Henry Winters: The new platform has been designed and is being erected for the trooping the colour ceremony on Sunday, May 27. In addition to the standard sections which were designed, one row of additional seats is necessary and that row is being made of new lumber which was cut to a size which will permit its re-use from time to time.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to ask a supplementary question. Are the steel stanchions, and so on, owned by the government or are they rented? I heard today they were rented.


Robert Henry Winters: They are owned by the government.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is an official of the immigration department at present engaged in reimbursing victimized new Canadians residing in the Stratford area and, if so, what is the source of the funds?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing whatever about the subject of possible reimbursement, but I will make inquiries.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House In committee of the whole on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation.-The Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I rise for the purpose of moving an instruction to the committee of the whole. I am not going to refer to it at the moment but I am sure Your Honour will agree with me this is the time and the only time at which such an instruction can be moved.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not agree with the hon. member. The hon. member is probably going

to deal with the period where the motion to commit was a debatable one and was amendable. At this moment the bill must be committed to committee of the whole. The order on the order paper is "House in committee of the whole", and therefore the motion must be put. It is a non-debatable and therefore a non-amendable motion. It is votable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on the point you have raised, it is not my intention to try to amend the motion for the reason you have just given, namely that it is not debatable and therefore not capable of amendment. But it is possible to move a superseding motion and a motion for an instruction to the committee is, of course, of the nature of a substantive motion which supersedes the motion for committal. Your Honour has to put the motion that you do leave the chair for the house to go into committee. It is stated in the authorities that it is at this time that a member may move an instruction to the committee which supersedes the motion. It is not an amendment to it and, if carried, would of course supersede it. As a superseding motion, a substantive motion, it is in order at this time. I would therefore propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair).-
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, to provide that no loan or advance shall be made to, or agreement made with, Trans-Canada unless the majority of the issued shares of its capital stock is owned by Canadians.
Sir, the purpose of the instruction will, I think, be obvious. It is to ensure that thing which the Liberal party, using the trade-mark of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, has been trying to tell Canadians, its own supporters and others in Canada that the present proposal does. I have here in my hand a copy of The Liberal-


Mr. Speaker:: If the motion should be in order and were it to be agreed upon the hon. member would have ample opportunity to make whatever points in debate he might wish to make, but I should like to refer the hon. member to Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, page 596. Following the division on the motion that the said bill be considered in committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house the said motion was carried and the entry in Votes and Proceedings is as follows:
The said bill was accordingly ordered for consideration in committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house.
What was the page to which the hon. member referred me?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I did not have the page before me. I have
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation now the reference in Bourinot at page 512-and there are also references in May- where Bourinot says this:
An "instruction",-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
having given me the reference of page 512,
I have it before me. That is exactly the one I had in mind also. At page 511 we find the following:
When a bill has been read a second time by the clerk, the next question will be proposed.
"That the house go into committee on the bill (now, or on 

 next.)"
The house generally goes into committee on the bill at once-but when desired, the committee stage is postponed to another sitting of the house.
That is exactly what was done last evening.
The motion generally passes, nem. con., like all such formal motions; though it is quite regular to move an amendment as to the time of committal.
The hon. member at this moment must remember that this edition of Bourinot was published in 1916. He will find it impossible to find any precedent where the motion to commit has been amended.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are not amending it.


Mr. Speaker:: Or that even a superseding motion has been moved.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, would you read the bottom paragraph on page 512 and headed by Roman numerals "VIII"?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I will read the bottom paragraph. I was prepared on that point last night, as a matter of fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So were we.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a little piece of paper that I unfortunately left on my desk in my office. However, I will read the balance of page 512 in Bourinot:
When the order of the day for committee has been reached and called in due form the speaker will put the question,
"That I do now leave the chair."
Now is the time to move any amendment to this question. Members opposed to the bill may move that the house resolve itself into committee on the bill that day three or six months; or may propose motions adverse to the principle or policy of the measure.
It has been frequently decided in the English house that, on the motion for the speaker to leave the chair, a member "is at liberty to discuss the main provisions, but not to proceed in detail through the clauses, nor to discuss amendments to the same, until the bill is regularly in committee".
Then at the bottom of the page there are various footnotes under various letters referring to the Canadian Commons Journals and also to the English Hansard.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is the succeeding paragraph to which I have reference, Mr. Speaker.
4254	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: On "Instructions"?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes; the paragraph dealing with instructions, not amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: May I submit to the hon. member that instruction is either necessary or it is not. If the committee has power to deal with some of the matters upon which the hon. member wishes to instruct the committee, then the instruction is unnecessary and trivial and should not be entertained. But before the hon. member can move an instruction he must first of all have the right to do so. In my view at this juncture of our proceedings he has no alternative. The only thing that can happen is a division on the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole, because last evening the house ordered that the bill be considered in committee of the whole at the next sitting. By "next sitting" is meant the one which by standing order 18 (2) the leader of the house announced as being the one on which the bill would be considered in committee of the whole and that is today. Therefore the order of the day having been called for that order, I have no alternative but to put the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I with respect point out that the paragraph in Bourinot that I am directing attention to is one dealing with this question of instruction, not with amendments to the motion that you leave the chair, and I think it should be before the house. It is paragraph 8 on page 512, and reads as follows:
An "instruction", empowering a committee to make those changes in a bill which otherwise it could not make, should be moved as soon as the order for the committee has been read by the clerk, and before the question is put, that the Speaker do leave the chair. An instruction, properly speaking, is not of the nature of an amendment, but of a substantive motion which ought to have precendence of the question that the Speaker do leave the chair.
Now, sir, we also anticipated this matter last night and when Your Honour read the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I think it was, that the house go into committee at its next sitting, we, I believe, protected the situation by the question we then asked which was whether that would require a motion to be put at the next sitting, "the next sitting" being the one that we have now embarked upon, and Your Honour answered, as reported at page 4246 of Hansard:
. . . and whenever the order is called I will have to put the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of


the whole upon this bill. At that moment it will be votable if the hon. member wishes to provoke a vote.
So that we did then establish that Your Honour has to put the question today, as is now about to be done, that it has been moved by Mr. Howe or Mr. Harris, as the case may be, that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on this bill. Bourinot states, and in this respect and at this date I submit that he is still an authority on instructions, that this is the time and the only time at which an instruction can be moved, when the order is called and before you put the question. He points out clearly that instruction is not an amendment but is, properly speaking, a substantive motion which ought to have precedence over the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. Therefore, sir, in my submission it is not material that we have amended the rules to prevent debate on the motion that Your Honour leave the chair to go into committee, and we are not asking to debate that motion. The precedent still stands that whether or not that motion be debatable, the motion for an instruction is a different motion, a substantive motion, and has precedence over the motion that you leave the -chair, so that this position is completely unaffected by the change that was made in the rules with respect to whether or not the motion to leave the chair is debatable.
As to the right of members to move instructions to the committee of the whole, I would refer of course to two precedents which were established in this house in the year 1948, and my first precedent is the Minister of Trade and Commerce himself who moved, on March 19, 1948, as recorded at page 2411 of Hansard, at this very stage, not to amend the motion for second reading, but an instruction and the Speaker of the day put the question as follows:
Mr. Howe moves, seconded by Mr. Gardiner, that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 135 into two bills, in order . . .
For the purpose then mentioned. This was the exact stage in which that instruction was moved. It was dealt with as a separate, substantive motion, having priority over the motion that Your Honour leave the chair. In the same year and in the same volume, as recorded on page 2207 of Hansard of March 15, 1948, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at this stage, immediately after the motion for the second reading had been carried and just before the question for Your Honour to leave the chair and the house to go into committee was put, moved an instruction to the committee of the whole that it have power to amend the bill by adding a clause, and that instruction, or the

motion for an instruction, was accepted and allowed for debate. Debate took place upon it and then the motion was voted on. The other case was a motion for instruction made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It was debated. The minister made a statement with regard to it on the circumstances of its introduction when he was introducing it.
It was debated shortly, it is true, but debated and then voted on.
Now, sir,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be good enough to extend his remarks on the last precedent that he mentioned? The instruction was to the committee to add a clause?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Was that to alter the title?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. Perhaps I should read it.
At page 2207 of Hansard, in the middle of column 2, the following appears:
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill 136 by inserting therein the following section:
2. Section four of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Then follow the details of the substitution. But this is the important point. The instruction did not instruct the committee to repeal a section of the bill that was going to be committed. The bill that was going to be committed was a bill itself repealing some provision of a former act. What the instruction asked the committee to do was to add a section to the bill; that is, to the bill that was about to be committed. It was argued on that occasion and on other occasions that without such an instruction the committee would have no power to make the change requested. The subject matter of the instruction, of course, had to relate to the subject matter of the bill; it could not be something entirely outside the legislation. The instruction has to be something that gives the committee of the whole power to do something which otherwise they could not do, and it has to be permissive and not mandatory.
In other words, it has to give them power to do it; it has to be a power without which they could not perform the act requested. Therefore, I maintain the form of my instruction is clearly in order; it is permissive. This is the only way you can move an instruction to the committee of the whole. It relates to something connected with the bill, the Trans-Canada company and the circumstances under which loans and advances are to be made, all of which is a part of the subject matter of the bill. Without the instruction the committee could not make the particular change which I am now suggesting that it have power to make, so that 67509-270
1956	4255
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the instruction is, in my submission, completely in order under the regulations governing the form of instruction. It is moved at the proper time in accordance with the precedents which I have cited and the authority of Bourinot.
Since it is a substantive motion it takes precedence over the motion that you leave the chair. It is not an amendment and therefore the propriety of moving it, and its effect, are not altered by the fact that we have altered the rules with regard to debating the motion that you leave the chair. This is a different motion, and it is clearly in order at this stage and is debatable and I submit, sir, that we should get on with the debate as to whether or not the house agrees that the committee should be so instructed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a few words in support-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -of the point of order that has been made by the hon. member for Kamloops. I am sure that Your Honour will agree that he has done right in dividing the subject matter as you, sir, have done, into two questions. First, there is the question of whether or not we have the right to make an instruction at this stage at all. The second question would be as to whether or not the motion moved by the hon. member for Kamloops is a proper instruction. I shall not go into the latter question now except to say it does not seem to me it is a proper motion of instruction in that it does not give an order to the committee but rather gives the committee power to consider a certain motion if it wishes to do so.
With regard to the question as to whether we still have the right to move an instruction, it seems to me that the points the hon. member for Kamloops has made are clear cut and unanswerable. Bourinot's words on page 512 surely say that this is the time; namely, when the order for the second reading of the bill has been read by the Clerk and before the question is put that the Speaker do leave the chair.
May I remind Your Honour again of two instances and of yet a third one in 1948 along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops. In both of the instances to which the hon. member for Kamloops referred, the matter was not sprung on the house by way of surprise. In the case of the instruction I moved in connection with
4256	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Ilsley's Transitional Measures Act we had had discussion previously, in committee on the resolution, during which it was agreed across the floor that the proper way to deal with the matter was by moving an instruction at that point.
It is quite clear from Hansard at page 2207 for March 15, 1948, that just as soon as the motion for second reading had carried and before the motion was put that Your Honour leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on the bill, the motion for instruction was entertained by the Speaker of that day. The debate continued for a number of pages in Hansard and the motion came to a vote.
Similarly, in the case of the bill amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act, there was discussion in committee. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave an undertaking in the committee that he would meet the wishes of the Progressive Conservatives of that day and present a motion of instruction to enable the committee to divide the bill into two parts if it wished to do so. It is clear again that this was not a direction to the committee which it had to carry out but rather it was an instruction empowering the committee to make that change if it wished to do so.
It is true that on both occasions the motions for instruction were defeated but the main point at this juncture is as to whether or not there are precedents. Your Honour said there were none but we are citing these instances from 1948 as precedents when this was done, and done at this very point.
The third occasion in 1948 is not exactly the same as the two which have been referred to but I think it does have significance for us. On that occasion the Export Permits Bill was under discussion and we had actually got beyond this stage. We were in committee on the bill. While we were in committee on the bill the Minister of Trade and Commerce sought to move an amendment which seemed to the committee to be quite substantial. There was discussion as to whether or not this was in order and it was agreed in the committee that it would be better for the committee to have an instruction from the house permitting it to make that amendment. A problem did arise as to how the house could move an instruction to the committee since there is a citation that says this can only be done on the first occasion when a bill is being referred to a committee. That difficulty was overcome by the giving of unanimous consent. The only point to which unanimous consent was given was to this


being done at a stage later than the first occasion when the bill was committed to the committee of the whole.
Accordingly, on April 16, 1948, as recorded at page 3041 of Hansard, the hon. member for Ottawa West, then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, moved an instruction to the committee giving it power to amend Bill 138 as follows-and the wording that follows is about half a column in length.
There was a debate. True, it was very short and only the then hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario spoke on it. At any rate that constituted a debate and the motion of instruction was agreed to.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the point is pretty clearly established that although the practice has been followed rarely, nevertheless it is an established practice that after second reading has been agreed to, before Your Honour leaves the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole it is proper to move a motion of instruction recognizing, of course, that the motion, so far as its substance is concerned, has to meet the other requirements respecting motions of instruction. I think that this one does, but the first point that has to be settled is the right of the hon. member for Kamloops to move a motion of instruction at this point.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not like what is going on. I have a very high regard for our democratic process; I have a very high regard, therefore, for parliament and for what parliament means to everybody. I think it is most unfortunate that Your Honour is being apparently placed in the position almost every day of having to act almost as a proponent of one side of an argument. It should be the duty of the leader of the house or the Prime Minister to answer these arguments which are being put up by the opposition, whether they are right or wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I think the Speaker of the house is being placed in a most invidious position when he is asked almost to act as a protagonist for the other side.


An hon. Member:: There is only one side in this house anyway.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: For the sake of parliament we should let the leader of the house put up arguments against the arguments which are being advanced here and let the Speaker make his decision.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have been under the impression through all these points of order-and I am speaking to the one raised now

that had anyone on this side given an opinion we would have had precisely the same answer that I received when I did express an opinion last week when the leader of the C.C.F. party commented that I directed the chairman to do something. I objected, Mr. Speaker, at that time that I did not ask for such a direction.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not the interpretation that should be placed on what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I object that when an hon. member on this side of the house rises on a point of order the people on the other side shout "Sit down". Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the British parliament 300 years ago and this government has effectively blown up this parliament without the risk of being hanged.


Mr. Dechene:: Are you afraid of the big bad wolf?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I should draw your attention to a ruling, or an explanation at any rate, of what I think is presently under consideration. It may not be complete but I read to you in the second edition an extract from Beauchesne which reads this way:
If an instruction is moved-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What page, please?


Walter Edward Harris: In a moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From what page are you reading?


Walter Edward Harris: Page 134, item 431. I continue:
If an instruction is moved when the motion to leave the chair is proposed, then it becomes an amendment which, if agreed to, supersedes the motion for the committee, and the bill consequently cannot be proceeded with for the time being.
Now, sir, you have already said, and I think it has been generally accepted, that the motion you are about to put to the house is not debatable and ergo not amendable. Under those circumstances, if the motion now proposed by my hon. friend is accepted and if it becomes an amendment then it violates the ruling you have already given and which we always understood has been the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the reason-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I am quite prepared now to give a preliminary view
67509-270J
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation as to how I look upon this matter. It may be that if the hon. member wishes to argue the point further-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to reply to the minister.


An hon. Member:: There is no debate.


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment if hon. members wish to hear me in silence I will review the situation. Last evening the question was put, "When should we go into committee of the whole on this bill?" The answer is either now or at the next sitting. The motion was that we go into the committee of the whole at the next sitting. A division was asked for and the house carried that motion, and therefore the bill was ordered for committee of the whole at the next sitting. We are at the next sitting. The orders of the day having been called, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) supported as he thinks by Bourinot at page 512, moved a motion which he contends is a substantive motion in the nature of an instruction to the committee to give the committee powers to do something which otherwise it may not do. Let us look at page 512 of Bourinot, which states:
An "instruction", empowering a committee to make those changes in a bill which otherwise it could not make,-
The first question which is raised here is: Could the committee of the whole make these changes without this instruction? We will keep that one in mind and deal with it later. I continue reading from Bourinot:
-should be moved as soon as the order for the committee has been read by the Clerk, and before the question is put, that the Speaker do leave the chair. An instruction, properly speaking, is not of the nature of an amendment, but of a substantive motion-
I interrupt there to comment as follows: Because Bourinot contends that an instruction is of the nature of a substantive motion does not make that motion for instruction a substantive motion. Bourinot likens it to a substantive motion, but that does not make that motion a substantive motion. I continue:
-which ought to have precedence of the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. If an instruction is moved when the latter motion is proposed, then it becomes an amendment, which, if agreed to, supersedes the motion for the committee, and the bill consequently cannot be proceeded with for the time being.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops was sent to the chair before the motion that I leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole was proposed. Therefore this paragraph does not apply. I continue quoting Bourinot at page 513:
Considerable misapprehension appears to exist as to the meaning of an instruction. An instruction is given to a committee to confer on it that

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation power which, without such instruction, it would not have. If the subject matter of an instruction is relevant to the subject matter and within the scope and title of a bill, then such instruction is irregular since the committee had the power to make the required amendment. The following precedents will illustrate the correct practice with respect to this class of motions.
Then Bourinot gives several examples of similar motions. If hon. members will carry on to pages 514 and 515 they will come to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Cockburn, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker Cockburn decided that the committee had the power to do what was proposed, and that consequently the motion was irregular. In 1872, when the question for committee on the bill to repeal the insolvency laws was under consideration in the Canadian House of Commons, Mr. Harrison moved that it be an instruction to the committee to except the province of Ontario from the operation of the bill. Mr. Blake having made objection to the motion, Mr. Speaker Cockburn ruled: "As the bill affected the whole dominion the committee have already the power asked for in the motion, and consequently it is out of order."
I quote this to show that it is within the power of the Speaker to reject a motion if it is his view that the committee has the power to deal with the subject matter of the instruction contained in the motion. Then I come to the various precedents which the hon. member for Kamloops has cited, as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Reference was made to an instruction to divide a bill. I think the hon. member could have quoted an instruction to consolidate a bill or an instruction to ask the committee to go beyond the title of the bill. If the hon. member will look at page 515 of Bourinot's fourth edition he will see the rules which have been laid down and he will see also that in certain cases the committee of the whole has no other choice but to receive an instruction if it is to divide a bill or consolidate a bill. In the instances quoted by the hon. member it seems to me that had the committee not received the instruction, because of the rules laid down by Bourinot and the decisions of English Speakers as outlined at page 515, the committee could not have proceeded. Here are the decisions:
Decisions of English Speakers have also laid down the following rules with respect to instruction:
"That it requires an instruction to divide a bill into two parts or to consolidate two bills into one.
That notice should be given of an instruction when a member has proposed such as a substantive motion, and not as an amendment to the question, that the Speaker do leave the chair."
When Bourinot says at the beginning of the section dealing with this subject that it is of the nature of a substantive motion, he is also noting that when it is to be considered as a substantive motion, therefore debatable
FMr. Speaker.]
and amendable, notice should be given. Those are the rules laid down by the decisions of English Speakers. I continue:
"That when a bill is simply a continuance bill of an act now in force, it is not competent for the committee to introduce a clause of a different nature to the simple scope of such bill, but it may be an instruction to the committee to introduce such a clause."
I have read the rules which have been laid down by English Speakers. I feel that I am justified, not by what the hon. member for Kamloops or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, but what the English Speakers have said as laid down by Bourinot. I continue:
"That It is not regular to instruct a committee to entertain a question which is outside of the bill before them."
That is the end of the various decisions as to instruction. All this has to be read in conjunction with the paragraph on page 513, which reads:
Considerable misapprehension appears to exist as to the meaning of an instruction. An instruction is given to a committee to confer on it that power which, without such instruction, it would not have. If the subject matter of an instruction is relevant to the subject matter and within the scope and title of a bill, then such instruction is irregular since the committee had the power to make the required amendment.
I have already indicated that Mr. Speaker Cockburn and many others have ruled that in their view a certain instruction was one that the committee had power to do. I will read this proposed instruction in order to find out whether the committee could not have dealt with it in committee of the whole. The instruction is to provide that no loan or advance shall be made to or agreement made with Trans-Canada unless the majority of the issued shares of its capital stock is owned by Canadians. Clause 6(2) of the bill reads:
The Minister of Finance, at the request of the corporation and with the approval of the governor in council, may from time to time out of the consolidated revenue fund lend money to the corporation on such terms and conditions as the governor in council approves, but such loans to the corporation shall bear interest at a rate that is not less than three and one-quarter per cent per annum.
Do hon. members not think that an additional condition could be placed and be within the scope of the bill?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Kamloops says, "No." If it were to be moved as an amendment what would be the condition required? The condition would be that it be relevant to the clause under consideration. Certainly this is relevant to clause 6(2). If I had a chance to read through the bill,

as I am sure my hon. friend has, perhaps I could find many other spots where this thing could be moved as an amendment. Will he not agree that his instruction is not necessary because the committee of the whole has power to deal with the subject matter that he has in mind. In any event I see that there is no particular anxiety to argue against what I have said, but shall I rule now?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could put a question to Your Honour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is against the rules.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it will save some time. Do I understand Your Honour to be about to rule on the basis that the terms of the instruction are not appropriate because of the citations you have read, or because you feel that the instruction cannot be moved at this stage? I would say that if it were the former, then there would be a difference of opinion between us as to whether in fact the terms of my instruction are proper. But if it is the latter that you are to rule, then there would be a fundamental difference of opinion as to the propriety of an hon. member moving an instruction at this moment. It might be helpful if we could have the discussion narrowed down.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could clarify that point. Generally when the order of the day is read, "House in committee of the whole" the Speaker puts the motion. My first remarks were made on the assumption that I had proposed the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole at that moment. That motion is not debatable and I could not see how anyone could stand up and say anything even to move a superseding motion. This particular phase of our procedure is rather new because it is relatively recently that we have adopted new standing orders. Prior to the session of 1912-13 they were debatable. Citation 165 of Beauchesne's third edition reads:
A motion for the adjournment of debate upon a question for the adjournment of the house will not be entertained because no adjournment motion can be debated or amended.
It will be seen that that citation has no relevancy to the point at issue, but I draw attention to the last clause which reads:
-because no adjournment motion can be debated or amended.
He gives a reason in one instance, which is just as good as in any other, that if a motion is not debatable, it is not debatable and no one can stand up and say anything. We had a point like that the other day on the motion to adjourn the house. I will not make
5, 1956	4259
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation the point now, but I have studied the matter and have come to the conclusion that when a motion is made that is not debatable under our rules the only thing for the house to do is to vote.
The motion for instruction was made by the hon. member before I proposed the motion for the house to go into committee of the whole and therefore what applies is the first paragraph on page 512 of Bourinot. The hon. member has made a good case by virtue of the decisions of the English Speakers rather than what is outlined by Bourinot at page 515. He has indicated that in all the precedents he has quoted the house has done exactly as Bourinot says at page 515 should be done, when the house must divide a bill in two or consolidate two bills or when it wants to add a clause which it would not have the power to do otherwise.
I rule on this basis, that the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops at this point is one that is in order from the point of view of the moment at which it must be proposed. Secondly, I say that the instruction contained in there is one that gives the committee instruction to do something which it already has power to do and that, therefore, the instruction is not necessary.
Of course, if the hon. member were to be faced later in committee of the whole with a ruling by the chairman, that the subject matter of his amendment were not to be relevant to any sections, I would say to him that he has a recourse and that, when the bill comes back from committee, he can always move that the bill be referred back with instructions. As he knows, it is merely postponing the matter. So my decision now is that the committee, in my own view, has power to deal with the subject matter of the instructions contained in this motion, and therefore I will rule it out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of your ruling that a motion of instruction if made at this juncture is made at the proper moment, provided it is a proper instruction, I rise to move:
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to consider amending Bill No. 298 by incorporating therein the agreement made on May 8, 1956, between Her Majesty the Queen-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon.
member before he concludes reading his motion? Is it the contention of hon. members that the floor should be reserved to them with a view to putting these motions to give instructions to the committee of the whole? Hon. members know that it is customary, when there is an order of the house to go
4260	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation into committee of the whole, that the order is read, the minister indicates he is ready to have the motion proposed, and the Speaker proposes the motion. The hon. member for Kamloops has made one motion, and I have dealt with it. How long am I going to act as if the Minister of Trade and Commerce should not have his motion put forward from the chair and therefore should not be recognized at all, so as to give how many hon. members the chance to move many intervening motions in the meantime?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to Bourinot, page 516-


Some hon. Members:: Oh! Nuisance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Bourinot at page 516 deals with that point specifically, where he says:
Mr. Speaker ruled, as above,...
"That any number of instructions may be moved successively to the committee on the same bill, as each question for an instruction is separate and independent of every other..."
That seems to dispose of the point raised.


Walter Edward Harris: Even assuming that is so, the remarks you made, sir, are extremely valid. Must the government wait while every member of the opposition moves a motion? We have placed one before you; we want it put.


John George Diefenbaker: The old steam roller.


Mr. Drew:: The government says; it must be so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a point which Your Honour, of course, is in a position to answer. A matter is either right or wrong; it is not to be decided on the basis of whether or not-


Mr. Howe (Port Arihur):: Except when you do it; then it is always wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -it is inconvenient to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out to the hon. member that that is not the point at all. The point is that a member gets the floor when he catches the Speaker's eye. It is very simple. Standing order 29 only meets the case when two members rise at the same time, and it states that a motion may be made that a certain hon. member be now heard. But the question is that, when the hon. member rose-after I had just made my ruling, and I had not yet reached the comfort of my own chair, the hon. member was standing. I sincerely believed he was at that moment going to comment on the ruling I had just made. As a matter of fact, that is the way he started his comments, anyway. I did not know that he was going to conclude with another motion


and I repeat the point. Whatever is done with respect to this motion one way or the other, I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre: Am I going to give the floor to every hon. member who wishes to move any other motion but the one that the house do go into committee of the whole at the present moment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I waited, so far as making my own decision whether or not I would move this, until I heard your ruling on the motion made by the hon. member for Kamloops.


Walter Edward Harris: How innocent!


Stanley Howard Knowles: You made a very clear-cut ruling and divided it into two parts. If I may deal with the second part first, you said that his motion was out of order because of its substance, but before you ruled it out of order on that ground you said that he was in order at this point in seeking to move a motion of instruction. Therefore, relying on page 516 of Bourinot, I feel that if one motion of instruction is in order at this particular time, inconvenient though it may be to my hon. friends opposite, literally any number of such motions may be made provided they meet the conditions that you yourself have laid down. I say to you, sir, that you will be the judge as to whether or not the substance of the motion that I seek to make is in order, whether it is a proper instruction, but I rely on your own statement when you were answering the hon. member for Kamloops that it is appropriate at this point, before the question for going into committee of the whole is proposed, to move a motion of instruction. It was on the basis that I felt I was at exactly the same point in our proceedings that the member for Kamloops was when he rose some time ago and that I had exactly the same right he had then to propose a motion of instruction, subject only to Your Honour's verdict as to whether the substance of my motion of instruction is a proper instruction to the committee. It was on that basis I sought to move it. I should like to move it. I should like to repeat the whole of it, but of course whether or not I may proceed with it I am sure Your Honour will at least let me propose the motion so that you can decide if it is in order.


Mr. Speaker:: At this moment the hon. member is in possession of the floor and I will allow him to move it, but perhaps 1 am a jump ahead. I would imagine that hon. members will be fair in this matter. Here is an order of the day, house in committee of the whole, and I am about to propose that

I do now leave the chair, a motion moved by the minister who pilots this bill.


Mr. Fleming:: He has not moved it yet.


Mr. Speaker:: There are many things that are sometimes possible but do not happen in a house such as ours, and I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne, citation 227, where, talking about debate under closure, it says:
The government members, in order to prevent the opposition from proposing such amendments, may keep up debate until two o'clock in the morning . . .
This does not happen because, as hon. members know, the Chair distributes the time among members, and we are faced with the same problem now. If I allow hon. members who want to move instructions to proceed before the question is proposed by the chair that the house go into committee of the whole on this bill, then I leave them in the position where they can move what they consider is a motion in the nature of a substantive motion, whereas if I put the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce they are then placed in the position set out in Bourinot at the top of page 513. I ask them: Am I going to delay the proposal of the motion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce if there are four, five, six or seven motions for instructions? Having said that, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre understands the situation and he can put his motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before that is done-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -I wish to explain the situation. I have not intervened lately for this reason. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose I was rather under the impression that he was going to speak to the point of order that had been before us. It had been my intention to appeal your ruling on the motion I made. I would request that right now before the hon. member actually makes his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I submit that it is now too late for that to take place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of Your Honour's ruling, which you have now made twice, that it is proper at this time to move a motion of instruction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver -Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis):
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to consider amending Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, by incorporating therein the agreement made on May 8, 1956, between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
23.	1956	4261
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation
I am prepared to speak to the motion if Your Honour will allow it as in order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has moved that the committee have power to consider amending Bill No. 298 by incorporating therein an agreement made on May 8, 1956 between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The subject matter of this instruction, moved before the motion for the house to go into committee of the whole is proposed from the chair, is one which, as Bourinot says at page 512, is an instruction of the nature of a substantive motion and has to take precedence over the question that the Speaker do leave the chair. That type of instruction is one that is the subject of a distinct question which I believe requires notice. It falls under the decisions rendered by English Speakers that I referred to a moment ago in the second paragraph on page 515 of Bourinot where it says:
That notice should be given of an instruction when a member has proposed such as a substantive motion, and not as an amendment to the question, that the Speaker do leave the chair.
If the question that the Speaker do leave the chair had been proposed I said earlier that the hon. member could not have moved his motion by way of amendment because the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair to go into committee of the whole is not debatable. He has moved it before, which is the only place at which it can be moved, but at this moment it is in the nature of something which is not in the bill. He wants to add a document to the bill which probably would be the subject matter of a schedule or an appendix, and it is my view that notice is required for an instruction of this type.


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say one word? An agreement is mentioned in the bill. Such mention is part of the bill. An agreement is clearly mentioned in it. If you look at part II you will find this language:
(e) pursuant to any agreement in that behalf made, with the approval of the governor in council, before or after the coming into force of this act,...
Consequently I argued previously-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to give me the number of the clause again?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The clause is No. 7 (2) (e). I argued this matter on a previous occasion on second reading. Now we are at the point where I think it is crucial that the agreement should be a part of the bill itself. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation under your own ruling just now this is certainly the right place to move it and that the motion is in order at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member tor Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) will, I think, agree with me in this. I may say that I had overlooked the fact that in one of the clauses of the bill mention was made of this agreement. But may I ask what there is to prevent the committee from dealing with this matter when the house is in committee of the whole?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Why should an instruction be given to the committee to incorporate the agreement therein?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I submit that is not the point. The point is this. Is it in order to do this at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McCann:: The agreement is in possession of the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have participated before in these discussions of points of order and to hon. gentlemen opposite I would suggest that, since they have closure on their side and are muzzling parliament so effectively, I might be given an opportunity to express my views. I am wondering whether we are in the old German Reichstag or whether we are in the Canadian parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: If the matter is one that is completely outside of the bill and is in the nature of a substantive motion, it requires notice. Speaker's rulings given in Bourinot at page 515 so indicate. If the motion is an instruction to give it power to do something which it already has power to do, then this is the proper time to move it. But it is my duty to decide whether or not the instruction is one which is proper to give to a committee and to include in a motion. I am obliged to give the same ruling as I gave a moment ago based on what Bourinot says at page 513:
If the subject matter of an instruction is relevant to the subject matter and within the scope and title of a bill, then such instruction is irregular since the committee had the power to make the required amendment.
Does the hon. gentleman wish to appeal my ruling?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I wish to appeal your ruling.
[Mr. Coldwell.l


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Major James William Coldwell: I think we must be right occasionally.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear that last remark.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that I think we must be right occasionally.


An hon. Member:: A reflection on the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in reply to my question whether he wished to appeal my ruling, answered yes and added these words, "I think we must be right on some occasions". On reflection I think the hon. member will agree that in those words there is an implication that, although he may be right on some occasions, I declare him to be wrong. I do not think he will want to leave any implication that the occupants of the Chair are not impartial. Do I take it that, in spite of what I have just said, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar wishes to rest on the words he has just used?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think you are human like the rest of us and that you err. In some of these rulings I think that right has been on our side, although you have seen the matter differently.


James Joseph McCann: That is worse.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to comment on this matter. I will refer the hon. member to citation No. 1 in Beauchesne's third edition. I totally agree with the hon. member when he says that I am human and that I may err. But I should also like to remind him that the house, if they think that I have erred, have a recourse.


Major James William Coldwell: In order to save time, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw any reflection that you feel I made on Your Honour.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of sustaining the Speaker's ruling will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed 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.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
When "orders of the day" were called, Mr. MAY
Knowles, seconded by Mr. Maclnnis, moved that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to consider amending Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, by incorporating therein the agreement made on May 8, 1956, between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.
I ruled that the proposed motion was out of order on the ground that the subject matter of the instruction was within the terms of Bill No. 298, and since the committee had power to consider the proposition, the proposed instruction was not necessary. I based my ruling on the following comments in Bourinot's fourth edition at page 513:
"If the subject matter of an instruction is relevant to the subject matter and within the scope and title of a bill, then such instruction is irregular since the committee had the power to make the required amendment."
Whereupon Mr. Coldwell appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Two hon. members are on their feet at the same time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Could you not wait until the Speaker recognized you? We have to observe the rules of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Leader of the Opposition risen on a point of order?


George Alexander Drew: I propose to make a motion which is appropriate in relation to the ruling made by the Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would hon. members be kind enough to let me hear what is being said?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a motion to divide the bill, a motion which can only be made at this time when the motion has been put that the Speaker leave the chair. In that respect I would refer to page 2411 of Hansard for March 19, 1948, and the statement attributed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce which reads:


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am simply making a statement as I said I would at this time. I said that after the second reading of the bill, before the Speaker had left the chair, I would move to take the power in committee to divide the bill in order to report one section and to send another section to a committee.
The purpose of that offer was to expedite the passage of the bill. I might point out that some eight days have elapsed since then, and every section of the bill has been thoroughly debated. The objective of saving time has not been achieved, and I see no purpose at the moment in putting this motion. However, having said I would do so I am willing to move it, but it is obvious, I think, that the motion will be voted down.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce then moved:


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move, Mr. Speaker, that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 135 into two bills, in order that one may deal separately with oats and barley.
That motion was accepted and was voted on at that time on the understanding that it was appropriate that this motion to divide the bill be made before the bill went into committee, otherwise there could be no effective discussion on the basis of the division of the bill. Seeing that we have this precedent from the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would hope it would be acceptable, certainly to the Minister of Trade and Commerce if not to anyone else. Also I would

point out a statement in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, on page 515, which reads:
That it requires an instruction to divide a bill into two parts or to consolidate two bills into one.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, we have before us one part of this bill dealing distinctly with the northern Ontario pipe-line section, what is described as the northern Ontario bridge. We have another part of that bill dealing with an entirely separate problem, separated in fact by a gap of 110 miles between Winnipeg and the Ontario boundary. There are two different projects which are appropriately the subject of two different bills. I submit, Mr. Speaker, the only time it is possible to raise this motion and to avoid unnecessary discussion which would later prove to be fruitless would be at this very moment, and I therefore move-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member to say that I agree with him and I will accept his motion. What he has said confirms the two rulings I made earlier.


George Alexander Drew: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe):
That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, into two bills in order that one may deal separately with the financing and construction of the proposed pipe line from the Alberta boundary to Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question but that this motion is in order, because it is an instruction to the committee of the whole that the bill be divided in two. It is also in order by virtue of Bourinot's comments on the decisions of English Speakers which have been laid down with respect to instructions as reported on page 515, one being as follows:
That it requires an instruction to divide a bill into two parts or to consolidate two bills into one.
Naturally that motion has to be made before the motion is put for the house to go into committee of the whole. This is the type of instruction which is not in the nature of an amendment but rather of a substantive motion. The only point I would put to the house before I put the motion is one which I have some doubts about. I know the Clerk has gone to look up some references in this regard. I refer to the fact that this motion comes up without notice at this juncture of our proceedings when we have an order of the house to go into committee of the whole. The only formal procedure which separates us from reaching the committee is the motion that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole. The question as to whether this motion not

being on the order paper is one that is debatable by virtue of standing order 32 must be decided. I would certainly prefer to delay having to rule on that point. Standing order 32(2) reads:
All other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided without debate or amendment.
I do not see listed in standing order 32(1) this type of motion, which if it were to be debatable would have had to be preceded by a notice by virtue of standing order 41.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I sat down because Your Honour had risen, but my remarks at this stage will not be extensive. I read the quotation from Hansard to show that a vote of this kind has already been accepted in the house and Your Honour has ruled that it can be accepted. I need not extend any comments on that point.
I would point out, however, that the minister in whose name the motion now before us stands has indicated his approval of this course on other occasions. I would point out that we have two distinct subject matters. We have already indicated our view in regard to that part of the measure which relates to the northern Ontario bridge. However, we have something entirely new, and that is the construction not by a crown corporation of any part of the proposed length of the pipe line, but rather we have the proposal for an advance of public money to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to construct the western section from the Alberta boundary to the vicinity of Winnipeg.
Surely that subject can best be debated as a single subject. It stands alone. It is obvious that unless the purposes of that part of the act are fully carried out by next spring, then the whole question of the northern Ontario bridge is deferred because the crown corporation will not have enough money to proceed. Therefore it is appropriate and advisable that the discussion relate to a bill dealing with the advance of money to the western section, and that we should deal quite separately with what is an entirely different proposal, not the advance of money to Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited but an advance of money to a crown corporation for the purpose of publicly building a segment of this pipe line through northern Ontario. Those are so distinctly different that I do not think they should have been incorporated in one bill, and my motion is designed to bring about that separation.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Leader of the Opposition was just further explaining the purpose of his motion but, as I say, in my view this would not be debatable. Would the hon. member for Kamloops enlighten me?
23, 1956	4265
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Mr. Speaker:: I am really touched by the sensitiveness of some hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I just add as a third precedent the case of April 16, 1948, when the member for Ottawa West, on behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, moved a motion of instruction. It appears on pages 3041 and 3042. It was spoken to by the then member for Muskoka-Ontario, the present member for Greenwood, and there was a further comment by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In other words, without any question that motion for an instruction was debated, and the result on that occasion was that the motion carried.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no question that if the motion is debatable we have a debate. If the motion is not debatable, the fact
4266	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation that it might have been debated on two or three occasions does not make a motion any more debatable now. Standing order 32 outlines the motions that are debatable and indicates that all other motions are not debatable.
Hon. members know that sometimes debates take place when they are not supposed to take place. For instance, I can show hon. members five or six pages of debate when a member had moved a motion with an asterisk for the production of papers, and that surely is not debatable. Nevertheless, probably because of the indulgence of the house and because of the good nature of the Speaker, some of these things do take place. But is it debatable or is it not?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to prolong the point unduly, but I would like to have a chance to take a look at the references that have been referred to. I shall ask the Deputy Speaker to take my place while debate may be carried on, and I shall go and look at those-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we shall gain more by patience than by anxiety. I want to have a look at these references because I take it that it is the contention of hon. members that, because of these various precedents, where some short discussion has taken place, it makes the motion debatable. My contention is that if it does not come within the specifications of standing order 32, it is not debatable. At any rate, I want to go and look at the references that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Kamloops have quoted. To make sure that I have them right, I have one on April 16, 1948, pages 3041 and 3042, and would the hon. member for Kamloops be good enough to repeat the numbers of the pages for the other two references?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think they were pages 2207 and 2411 of Hansard of 1948. I can confirm that with Your Honour later. I believe also that there is a passage in May on this matter, on page 526, under the heading of "Debate thereon."


Mr. Speaker:: I would not place much reliance on the subject headings because over there they have provisions for notices which we do not have. Although it may be brought to a debate in the United Kingdom house, I do not think the same provisions apply to us.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I shall not read it, but I would refer Your Honour to page 526 of May. Those are the authorities that occur to me at the moment.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion before the house. I therefore move:
That the house do now proceed to government order No. 2.


Donald Methuen Fleming: More closure. One gag and one guillotine after another.


An hon. Member:: Why not adjourn parliament?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is a motion now before the house. I think a substantive motion is always a superseding motion, in other words one that takes priority. We have had a discussion of that over the motion of Your Honour to leave the chair. The motion for Your Honour to leave the chair can only be put, in fact, after the orders of the day have been put, and I submit that no other superseding motion can be moved at this stage while the discussion in under way on the particular motion now before the house. It must have priority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one other
point of order. If the motion of the Minister of Finance is regarded by Your Honour as in order, that means you are assuming that the motion before you is a debatable motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope I shall not have to decide that point; but, while I am asking the house to give me a chance to look at the precedents that have been quoted, I want to say that in my view, if it were not my genuine desire to deal with the utmost fairness with respect to this particular matter, as I do with respect to any other, I would make a ruling now, and my ruling would be that this motion is not debatable. But I am giving latitude to debate while I go and look those up, and I shall be able to do that only inasmuch as I leave the chair. In the meantime, while this latitude of debate was being accorded, the minister has indulged in the same sort of latitude and said, "I shall move a motion. While this is allowed to be debated, I shall move my motion."
But I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would be good enough not to press this motion. At this moment I should like the house to consider that I am concerned not so much with procedural wrangles but to make sure that whatever motions are being made are dealt with in a proper manner. If hon. members are going to concentrate their efforts on throwing all kinds of motions my way, I want to tell them that they risk,-if they insist that

I make snappy rulings, I shall make them to the best of my ability-but if it happens that in the future they are not considered as being proper, then we will have precedents established that will not be the right ones.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Your Honour has said that if hon. members are throwing all sorts of motions at the Chair then members must accept the consequences, I would point out that this is the only time this motion can be made. There was no time before; there will be no time afterwards. Your Honour has already accepted that. Without in any way questioning the intent of what Your Honour said, I would not want any suggestion that this is just a motion thrown out for the purpose of adding a motion to these debates.
This is a motion which has itself been used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on another occasion with the explanation as to why he thought it was appropriate. I would hope that it would be realized that there is a fundamental reason for considering this carefully. Certainly, whether it be to adjourn this discussion or to permit the discussion to proceed, I would strongly urge that Your Honour should not make any hasty decision, because this is something that has been dealt with and the practice has been accepted. I would certainly regret very greatly that any hasty ruling now would deny a long-established privilege to give instructions at this point before a committee goes into discussion of the bill, if in fact there is reason for dividing that bill as we suggest.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the position in which you find yourself at the moment, as I am sure all hon. members do. It seems to me that if you were to rule that a motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition is non-debatable, then we would in fairly short order dispose of it by a vote. If on the other hand, you were to hold that it was debatable, you would have to deal with the motion I have presented to you.
Under those circumstances it would seem that if you feel the ruling which you want to make is a ruling on the first motion, as I presume you do, it would perhaps be in the best interests of ordinary procedure in the house, in view of the time we may take in coming to this question, to allow for a time of suspension for Your Honour to consider a ruling on the first motion of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a little unusual, perhaps, for the house to remain in what might be called suspended animation
23, 1956	4267
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation while you consider the situation; nevertheless it seems to me that is all that could be called for at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: I am positive that this motion is not debatable. I am sure that it cannot be debatable at this time, because you cannot have debate on a motion without notice. Here is a motion for which debate is certainly not provided for by standing order 32. What puzzles me is that I am quoted three precedents where, they say, five pages of Hansard covered the debate that took place.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that due notice was given that that motion would be made. It was given on second reading. In fact, an undertaking was given to the house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No formal notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Precisely what I thought might have been the case.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: But I have no knowledge of these things at the moment. I cannot be expected to have precedents in my mind, the numerous precedents in every case. I think the suggestion I made a moment ago seems to be now generally acceptable, that the house allow me a few minutes to go and check these precedents that have been quoted, and in the meantime the debate will have to take place.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What debate?


Mr. Speaker:: What do you suggest should take place; that we should suspend the house?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that we suspend the house. I thought I made it clear that I think all hon. members will be glad to remain where they are while you consider the matter in the same way that you would consider it if you remained in the chair. You often take time to look at the books before you, and I expect you would want to take a little longer to look at other books. Nevertheless, while you are doing that the house remains more or less silent and awaits your decision.


Mr. Hodgson:: Why not dissolve the house and go to the country?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I give one brief reference that I hope will assist you in coming to your conclusion on the point of order that has been raised. You have had a reference to the discussion that took place on March 15, 1948, on a similar motion. It will be recalled that after the motion was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the member of the house who followed him was

4268	HOUSE OF
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Mr. Ilsley, who was recognized as one of the leading authorities in the house on the rules of the house. Mr. Ilsley opened his remarks with these words, as recorded at page 2210 of Hansard:
I presume I may now speak to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. gentleman gave no notice; therefore I have been able to give it consideration only during the last few minutes.
Then he went on and made his statement, and about half a dozen other members of the house also participated in that debate.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has just now made a reference to what occurred in the house on March 19, 1948, and has intimated to you that he gave notice.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: He did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He did not give notice. There was no formal notice at all. Hon. members who were in the house at that time will remember what happened. At that time the minister said-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt to ask the hon. member for Kamloops, while I am listening to the hon. member for Eglinton, to bring me the Hansards in which are contained the previous references so I may be in a position to make a decision as soon as possible? Would the hon. member for Kamloops be good enough to send me the Hansardsl


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have the volume and I will pass it up to you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will let you have mine, sir.


James Joseph McCann: You sit down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have nearly finished. The minister said today that he had given notice. He had not given notice. There was no formal notice at all as required by the rules if this was an amendment that required notice. All that was said in the course of the debate on an earlier day was that the minister gave an oral undertaking to the house that he would introduce this motion when that stage was reached. That was no notice at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You can give notice in the house. It has been done over and over again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is not the notice we are talking about at all. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is far astray of the mark. If notice is required it is a formal notice as prescribed by the rules. It is not a mere statement in the course of somebody's remarks in the house-


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was already unanimous agreement on that occasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that he will make a proposal to the house. That is not the notice we are talking about at all. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is even more astray than he usually is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was already unanimous agreement.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In the light of the references that have been cited here today the integrity of those precedents in relation to the subject now under discussion is, in my submission, unchallengeable.


George James McIlraith: I should like to comment on one point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He referred to the motion made by me on April 16, 1948, as found at page 3041 of Hansard, and used that as a precedent to indicate that there was a debate on a motion for an instruction to the committee. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that one member rose and started to speak, the hon. member for the then constituency of Muskoka-Ontario. During the course of his remarks it was pointed out to him that he was asking questions and he immediately resumed his seat and the house went into committee. Then he proceeded with his speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After a page of debate.


George James McIlraith: Yes, but he immediately desisted from debate when the matter was drawn to his attention.


Mr. Tucker:: May I draw one point to your attention, Mr. Speaker. At page 658 of Beau-chesne, third edition, I find the following:
The house cannot instruct a committee of the whole to amend a bill respecting public expenditure, so as to alter the nature of the expenditure recommended by the crown.
If you were to entertain the motion, Mr. Speaker, that the committee should divide the bill you would alter the whole foundation on which the bill is based. These two proposals are tied together and you would be changing the whole basis upon which this legislation has been recommended by the crown. Clearly a motion like that made by a private member of the house, not a minister of the crown, would be out of order because surely it would change the whole basis on which this recommendation by the crown is based. I cite that to Your Honour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have already ruled that the motion is in order. You did that some time ago. The point you are considering now is whether or not the motion is debatable.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I do not like these
situations of indecision. Reference has been made by the hon. member for Kamloops to

page 2411 of Hansard of March 19, 1948 as an instance when a motion to instruct the committee to divide a bill had been debated. I now have the text and at page 2411 I find the following:


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the debate on the resolution, Mr. Speaker, in response to a motion from the C.C.F. party that the bill be divided and the coarse grains section sent to a committee-


Major James William Coldwell: It did not come from the C.C.F.


Mr. Wright:: On a question of privilege-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am simply making a statement as I said I would at this time. I said that after the second reading of the bill, before the Speaker had left the chair, I would move to take the power in committee to divide the bill in order to report one section and to send another section to a committee.
The purpose of that offer was to expedite the passage of the bill. I might point out that some eight days have elapsed since then, and every section of the bill has been thoroughly debated. The objective of saving time has not been achieved, and I see no purpose at the moment in putting this motion. However, having said I would do so I am willing to move it, but it is obvious, I think, that the motion will be voted down.


Mr. Ross (Souris) :: The minister distinctly made the statement that he would adopt this procedure to divide the bill and refer section 5 to the agriculture committee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I move, Mr. Speaker, that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 135 into two bills, in order that one may deal separately with oats and barley.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Howe moves, seconded by Mr. Gardiner-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: -seconded by Mr. Mcllraith, that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 135 into two bills, in order that one may deal separately with oats and barley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pages 2207 to 2213 of that same volume of mine that you have in your hand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The reference I gave was page 2210.
23.	1956	4269
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: I see that this volume belongs to the library.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The library has it charged to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Page 2207. I see now that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre keeps a good note of all the motions he proposes. On that occasion, as appears at page 2207 of Hansard of March 15, 1948, he proceeded to propose a motion and he said this:
The procedure I wish to follow is identically the same as that which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) told us the other day it was his intention to follow with respect to Bill No. 135.
We have dealt with that matter. Then he gave all his authorities supporting the move he was proposing. It is true that his measure had to do with the Transitional Measures Act. I can see that he spoke at quite some length. However, I think he will agree with me that he was not so much debating the merits of the motion itself as the authorities supporting him in what he was doing. I note that at page 2208 he points out the citations in Beauchesne, Bourinot and May with respect to the differences between permissive and mandatory instructions. Then Mr. Smith, the then hon. member for Calgary West, asked a question and Mr. Knowles answered. Then Mr. W. Garfield Case spoke for about three paragraphs, then Mr. Ilsley and then Mr. Smith again.
What strikes me is this. Mr. Smith spoke three times. We can speak only once on a debatable motion.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If he spoke three times, perhaps it is three times as debatable as any other motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Ilsley himself spoke and there was an interjection by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Then Mr. Ilsley continued. He was interrupted by Mr. Smith of Calgary West, who took the floor. Then Mr. Ilsley spoke again. Mr. Knowles spoke again. Mr. Ilsley spoke. Then Mr. Knowles made an interjection. Then Mr. Ilsley spoke again.
This was not a debate as we understand it, where a member speaks to a question only once. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree with me, I am sure, that this debate took place with the indulgence of the house upon a motion moved by the hon. member with respect to an extremely important measure, namely the Transitional Measures Act, and that it is evident-because if the motion was really debatable, all the rules of debate were violated during that particular debate by members speaking two
4270	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation or three times to the same question-that the debate took place because of the climate which prevailed in the house at that time and by unanimous consent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Eglinton may say no, but I cannot conceive that a Speaker would allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to propose a debatable motion, then allow the then hon. member for Calgary West to speak three or four times and even the then minister of justice himself to speak three or four times and the original mover of the motion, without closing the debate, himself to speak again two or three times.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. You say that the then hon. member for Calgary West, Mr. Smith, spoke several times. With great respect, may I say that I think that is a misapprehension. If you will look at page 2209 you will find that he asked a question. That was all he did the first time.


James Joseph McCann: He said he spoke.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Just a minute. If you will look at page 2210, Mr. Speaker, you will find that he spoke in opposition to the motion. At page 2212, all he did was to throw in from his seat an interjection which Hansard caught. That was all he did. He said, "I am agreeing with you" in reply to an observation made by Mr. Zaplitny. This was not a free-wheeling discussion, Mr. Speaker, with all the rules waived. There is not a word said here to indicate that there was any consent on the part of the house that there was to be a free discussion on a motion that was not otherwise open to debate. With respect, Mr. Speaker, in your attempt to give a quick reading to some seven pages of Hansard under the pressures of the moment I think you have not correctly followed the discussion. With great respect, I do not see how anybody could hope to absorb the course of this discussion which is reported on seven pages of Hansard in the time that you have had available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Including the hon. member who is now speaking.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Fortunately not including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), because in 1948 we were spared his silly interruptions. There were in the house in those days people who knew something about the rules and Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley was recognized as an authority on the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Shall we discuss the point of order? Was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre going to say something?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was in the middle of saying something.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member for Eglinton had not concluded his remarks. Will he speak to the point of order?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I was observing that the member on the government side at that time who participated in that debate, namely Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, then minister of justice speaking for the government, was recognized as an authority on the rules. There was on his part no objection whatever. There is not a suggestion, not a word on his part, to indicate that the motion was not debatable. On the contrary he takes note of the fact that no notice was given, and he is speaking to the motion with the handicap of not having that notice. But he uses these words, "I presume I may now speak to the motion". What could be plainer than that, Mr. Speaker? There is the voice of the government on that occasion, and an authoritative voice having regard to the knowledge of the rules of the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I may be a
very new member of the house and I may not know the rules very well. But when the hon. member said that Mr. Ilsley drew attention to the fact that this was done without notice, it seems to me that he implied that in the ordinary course it would require notice. Even in the short time during which I have been in the house I have seen a great many things that were contrary to the rules done in this house by general consent, though it was quite tacit consent. It is perfectly obvious that is what happened on this occasion. I should like to disabuse the mind of any hon. member who thinks there is any unanimous consent to go on with the debate on this motion today, because I for one would never give it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, you were in the house on that occasion. You were a member of the house at that time. We have all this talk now conjuring up something that did not exist at the time, namely the idea of consent. Mr. Speaker, will you bear in mind the fact that this was a contested motion and that it resulted in a division in the house. There was no consent at all to its being proceeded with. On the contrary, it was formally contested, and it resulted in a division. Let there be no more silly talk about this debate having proceeded on the basis of consent. Talk of that kind comes from people who were not even in the house at the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour will observe, because you have the Hansard in front of you, that Mr. Ilsley's reference to not having notice was a case of laying the foundation for the fact that his remarks had to be extemporaneous. He said in the next sentence- I have not the Hansard in front of me but I am familiar with the passage-that accordingly he had not had any more time than the time during which I had been speaking to collect his thoughts about this issue. He did not refer to lack of notice as an objection to the motion at all.
The other point that I was going to make, Mr. Speaker, was this. Your Honour and all of us are familiar with the practice of Hansard in that it puts members' names in Hansard in full when they are making formal speeches with the Speaker in the chair; whereas they put the member's surname only, just Mr. Fleming or Mr. Pickersgill, as the case may be, when he makes an interruption or asks a question of the member who is still on his feet. Since you have the Hansard in your hand and I have not, is it not correct to say that my name appears in full and so does Mr. Ilsley's; and one or two others may be there in full as well. It means that those so-called repeated speeches by Mr. Smith and Mr. Case were interruptions in the speeches of other hon. members who had the floor. It seems to me that when Your Honour is presented with this situation it is hard to deny that that was a formal debate on a contentious issue which, as the hon. member for Eglinton has pointed out, ended with a recorded division.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I add one sentence? May I draw your attention to the fact that every time on these pages the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appears to have been speaking on the matter he spoke in reply to a question. In every case it was a reply to a question, nothing more; it was not an additional speech.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that there is only one way to settle this and that is to quote the passage in Hansard on which the whole argument is based to contend that this motion is debatable. I say that by virtue of standing order 32 this motion is not debatable, and I would go further and say that the first instance on which it' was contended that the motion had been debated, namely when Mr. Howe moved a motion regarding the dividing of a bill which related to oats and coarse grains, at that time the motion was put to the house but was not debated except for a clarification which had to be made regarding the statement which the minister had made in committee and by virtue of which he had
23, 1956	4271
Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation promised to make a motion to divide the bill later and that motion was defeated. The only other place that has been suggested as a precedent is where a debate took place when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved a motion to give instructions to a committee to divide a bill, and it appears on pages 2207 to 2213 of Hansard.
There are some differences of opinion as to whether or not this was a debate. It appears to me, from a quick reading of the various remarks that were made then, that it was not a debate on the merits of the motion proposed by the hon. member; it was rather a debate relating to the practical value and order of the motion which the hon. member had proposed. Mr. Knowles said:
Before Your Honour accepts the motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair and the house go into committee of the whole on Bill No. 136, I should like to propose a motion of instruction to the committee. The procedure I wish to follow is identically the same as that which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) told us the other day it was his intention to follow with respect to Bill No. 135. He indicated at that time that after the second reading of the hill had been passed he would move an instruction to the committee that they have power to do so and so with that bill. It is my intention at this identical stage to move as an instruction that the committee of the whole have power to carry out a certain procedure with respect to Bill No. 136 which is now before us. I do this. Mr. Speaker, under the authority of citation 407 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads as follows:
"An instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do. It directs the order and course of the committee's proceedings and extends or restricts the order of reference according to the discretion of the house."
Citation 410 indicates when and where such a motion as I am about to make is in order. It reads:
"An instruction to a committee of the whole is a motion which ought to have the right of way on the question that the Speaker do leave the chair."
I take it that it was on the authority of that citation that the Minister of Trade and Commerce outlined his proposed procedure the other day. It is on the same basis that I now rise. Mr. Speaker. I think it is only fair I should not go any further without indicating the nature of the instruction which I wish to move. I shall move it at this time, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson):
"That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to amend Bill 136 by inserting therein the following section:
Then follows section 2 and subsection 4. Then Mr. Knowles continued:
The Minister of Justice will recognize immediately that this is a point we raised last year when we were in committee on the original bill which was then before us. At that time, since we had the bill before us, it was competent in committee of the whole to move an amendment to section 4. Section 4 was, as I say, at that time before the committee of the whole. This year however we have before us, as the Minister

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation vi Justice has just indicated, a very simple bill with only one section, and it could be argued that that bill will bring before the committee of the whole only section 7 of the original act. Therefore if in the committee of the whole I were to rise and attempt to move an amendment to section 4 of the original act, it is altogether likely I would be told that section 4 is not before us, and therefore I would not be able to move an amendment to it.
That is my reason for moving that the house now pass this instruction to the committee, giving the committee the authority to take up section 4 and amend it by inserting another section in the bill now before the house.
I draw to the attention of the minister the fact that last year when I proposed this matter I did so on April 17, suggesting a wording which I felt met my point. The minister, although he did not agree with my motion, treated it with respect and asked that the matter stand, and the next day he suggested an alternative wording which is to be found at page 2181 of Hansard of April 18, 1947. The amendment which the minister then said would meet my purpose was:
Then comes the amendment. The hon. member continued:
I accordingly withdrew the amendment in the form in which I had worded it in the first place and moved an amendment in the form in which the Minister of Justice suggested it to me.
I could carry on like this throughout the rest of the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and if I have to I shall do so. But it seems to me that what the hon. member did at that moment was to make his point that the motion he was proposing was one that was in order and one that he had to make if he were not to be deprived of the right of making some amendments in committee; and at the same time it was meeting the point the Chair might have made that his motion was not to be received because it was empowering the committee to do something which otherwise it would not have the power to do. It is true that the late hon. member for Calgary West, Mr. Smith, at one point asked a question only of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to which the hon. member replied.
Then Mr. Garfield Case took the floor and said:
From what the Minister of Justice said the other day in explanation of the resolution I understood that the committee of the whole would have an opportunity to discuss any section of the act.
It is not the motion that is being discussed; it is the question of order and the question of the priority of the motion and the practical value of it that is being debated at the time. Mr. Case continued:
I am interested in one particular section. We have been told by the Minister of Finance that the law officers of the crown discovered a provision in the act which even the administration did not know existed, which they said would permit the government to carry out what we have been inclined to call the austerity program. I do not think the government itself expected that the

measure presented and passed last session would delegate such wide powers to the administration. For that reason I think when the committee of the whole is considering this bill clause by clause, or any part of it, we should have the right to seek out and deprive the governor in council of the right to deal arbitrarily with any situation with, which parliament itself should deal.
We have heard a good deal about the legality of the taxes which have been imposed, and so on. By the admission of the Minister of Finance himself the administration must find itself in an embarrassing situation today, when it is asking parliament to condone something which was done on November 17 and which it had or had not legal authority to do. So I think when the committee is considering this bill, if any direction is to be given we should be privileged to review the act and suggest amendments thereto, so we may feel more secure and may know that we are returning to at least some semblance of democratic government.
At this moment Mr. Ilsley took the floor and said that the matter had come before him without notice and therefore he was not as well prepared to discuss it as he otherwise might have been, but he went on to say:
I am inclined to think no harm would be done by giving this power to the committee. What we should do in committee is another matter. Last year I took the view first, I think, that I was indifferent to a similar motion, because I regarded it as an empty gesture: and I think it is not much more than an empty gesture at the present time. The preservation of the regulations of the wartime prices and trade board, exactly as they are contained in the schedule, gives the government full power to revoke individual controls under those regulations at any time they wish. For instance, they could remove any particular commodity from the operation of the regulations. It was for that reason last year that I thought it did not make any difference whether or not a similar provision passed. Finally, however, I stated that as a member of the committee I would vote against it. While expressing indifference as to whether it passed or not, I said I would vote against it, and it was voted down because it seemed to do something that actually it did not do.
The hon. member thinks that if this provision is added to the bill perhaps it will exercise some moral pressure upon the government to keep price controls on a little longer than they otherwise would. But that is the most that can be said for this resolution. In practice it may accomplish absolutely nothing. At the same time I do not think I can oppose the motion. I think the committee ought to have the power to make this amendment to the bill if it wishes. But what position I will take and what position the government will take on the amendment when the hon. member proposes it in committee is another matter.
Those who are more directly connected with the administration of this measure are giving it some attention at the present time. Perhaps there is some reason why it is important now that we do not surround the revocation of this order and the individual provisions of the order with these restrictions. Perhaps there is some reason why we should not now do that. It does seem somewhat illogical that the committee a year ago would vote against a provision like this.

From what I have read it appears obvious that Mr. Ilsley said the motion was an empty gesture, but nevertheless he was not going to oppose it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He discussed the motion on its merits.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, it is very difficult to differentiate when a debate takes place, especially when it takes place as it did on that particular occasion, the minister supporting it and stating that while he was going to support it he might take a different attitude in committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But the next two paragraphs make that very clear, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation motion in standing order 32 and I take it, and I so rule, that this motion is not debatable. Is the house ready for the question?


George Alexander Drew: With deference I appeal the ruling.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
When "orders of the day" were called, Mr. Drew, seconded by Mr. Rowe, moved the following motion:
"That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, into two bills in order that one may deal separately with the financing and construction of the proposed pipe line from the Alberta boundary to Winnipeg."
I ruled that, in accordance with standing order 32, the said motion was not debatable. Whereupon Mr. Drew appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the Speaker's ruling sustained. The question now is on the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, seconded by Mr. Rowe, that it be an instruction to the committee of the whole that they have power to divide the bill into two bills in order that one may deal separately with

the financing and construction of the proposed pipe line from the Alberta boundary to Winnipeg.
Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members consider that their members have been called in for the purpose of this division?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Weir:: Mr. Speaker, this side is ready to vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Since it is now four minutes past six o'clock, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.30 in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
It being four minutes past six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.