Mr. Knowles:

May I make just one comment on that point of order. We know that we have no jurisdiction over children, but we do have power to pass or turn down a bill. Our decision to pass or turn down a bill may depend upon what is going to happen to the children. That is why we are anxious to know about the children.

Mr. Winkler:

There are no children

involved in this case.

Section stands.

Progress reported.

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved

the third readings of Bills Nos. 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 and 141.

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion.

On division.

Mr. Speaker:

It being nine o'clock the

house will revert to the business under consideration at six o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:

Is the house ready for the

question?

Question.

Mr. Speaker:

Before the question is put I think I should ask the opinion of members of the house as to whether or not the amendment is in order. I have not been able to find a similar amendment. The motion before the house is that I leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. The amendment is:

That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"this house is of the opinion that further consideration should not be given to the proposal to authorize by amendment to the British North America Act an indirect provincial sales tax of three per cent.

Upon reading the speech from the throne I find it contains a reference to legislation to amend the constitution, and I am sure that reference is to the legislation referred to in the amendment now before the house. It occurs to me that the house has come to the decision that it will consider an amendment of the constitution if and when presented. Another difficulty I find is that this amendment appears to anticipate by a negative motion certain legislation foreshadowed in the speech from the throne, which may or [DOT]may not come before the house.

I am very doubtful whether the amendment is in order. I have given it very careful consideration for the reason, as I have said already, that it appears to be without precedent. If any hon. member cares to make any observations I shall be very glad to hear them.

Mr. Fulton:

It occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the first thing one should consider in: this connection is the citations in Beauchesne which refer to the moving of amendments to the motion that Your Honour leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. The first is citation 345 at page 137 of the third edition, and it reads in part as follows:

The ancient doctrine that the redress of grievances should be considered before the grant of supplies is maintained in the House of Commons of Canada by the provision of standing order 49 that the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair can be amended; and the amendments need not be relevant but may relate to every question connected with public administration.

The other citation is No. 467, at page 174 of the same volume:

Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except on Thursday and Friday as provided by standing order 28. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss

Turnover Tax

any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance . . .

It seems to me the wording of those two citations, particularly citation 345, which says it is competent to a member to move an amendment which need not be relevant but may refer to any question connected with public administration, indicates that the subject matter of this amendment, which is the amendment of the constitution and the imposition of a three per cent sales tax, a subject which is before a dominion-provincial conference, certainly is a matter affecting public administration which if decided in the conference would require an address of this house before such an amendment of the constitution could be made. So it seems to me the matter of the amendment is quite within the scope of the two citations referred to.

Then to deal with the point made by Your Honour that there was reference to constitutional amendments in the speech from the throne, and the speech from the throne having been voted already that might preclude further consideration of this question through a substantive motion at this time, it seems to me, though I have not the citations before me at the moment, the relevant rule there is that a matter on which a decision has once been reached cannot subsequently be raised at another stage in the session. But does it not seem to Your Honour, as it does to me, that this rule refers to questions which themselves have been the subject of motions, amendments or subamendments and have been decided by a vote? I doubt very much whether it would be feasible to extend the rule to apply to the whole subject matter of the speech from the throne. If one particular phase of the speech from the throne is made the subject of a specific motion or amendment, I suggest that it is not proper to extend the rule to apply to the whole speech, but that only the one part which has been made the subject of a motion may not be raised again. If you were to say that once the speech from the throne has been adopted no motion referring to any of the subject matters of the speech from the throne could be made, debate in the house would be almost pointless, and the field within which one could bring up a subject would be so restricted as to almost eliminate debate during the session. Indeed it would be almost impossible to move an amendment to a budget motion, because some matter on which it was desired to move an amendment there might have been referred to in the speech from the throne. Supposing the speech from the throne said, "It is anticipated that it will [Mr. Fulton.1

be necessary to lay before you proposals for higher taxation to meet defence costs." To extend the rule in the way it seems to me Your Honour has indicated would mean we could not move an amendment on the budget because, the speech from the throne having been adopted, Your Honour would say that had been decided already.

So it seems to me that unless a particular part of the speech from the throne has been made the subject of an amendment or a motion, the rule to which Your Honour has referred does not preclude it from being made the subject of an amendment or a motion at a later stage in the session. This particular question of constitutional amendments was not the subject of any prior motion or amendment this session, and I submit therefore it is open to a member at this stage to move a substantive resolution or amendment dealing with tha-t subject.

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take part in this debate on the regularity of this amendment. When studying the case yesterday and today I thought the test might be that if a member were entitled to move a private resolution such as we have on the order paper at the beginning of the session, in about the same terms as this amendment, then the amendment could not be declared out of order. On the other hand when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke he laid great stress on the speech from the throne, and I think even read the two references to these negotiations with the provinces. Once the speech from the throne is carried I do not think a private member can anticipate any legislation that may be based upon it. The speech from the throne says:

The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals tor constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.

Now, this was debated in the house and decided in the affirmative. When a member can stand up and tell the government, "Well, you cannot bring in legislation to amend the constitution after having had an affirmative vote on the speech from the throne", that would, in my mind, be the strongest point to support the opinion that the, amendment is out of order.

There is only one earlier case to which I shall refer. It is not similar to this one, but it is a decision of Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Mr. Glen. It is found at page 631 of Beau-chesne, third edition, and concerns a subamendment to the amendment moved by the opposition. It was ruled out of order. The subamendment was moved by the hon. member

for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). The headnote on that decision reads:

On the motion for the address in reply to the speech from the throne, a subamendment expressing regrets that His Excellency's advisers are contemplating a reversal of policy cannot be entertained because it deals with future action, is based on an unapproved assumption and seems to be holding the government responsible for something it has not yet done.

That is the only decision I could find which has some similarity to the present amendment. I believe, as has always been the case in the past, your decision will satisfy everyone.

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker, I would, hope that you would give your earnest consideration to this before reaching such a decision as you have indicated is a possibility, because I would suggest, with deference, that a decision that this motion is not in order, for the reasons suggested, would constitute a most dangerous precedent. After all, the book to which we refer so frequently for guidance in reaching decisions on matters of this kind constitutes very largely the record of precedents established in the very manner in which we are now dealing with the subject under consideration. The suggestion has been made that this motion is not in order because of a reference to the subject matter of this motion in the speech from the throne. May I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the appropriate paragraph in Beauchesne, third edition, page 174, the paragraph numbered 467. That paragraph makes it clear that it is the established practice, and that it is appropriate, to raise by way of such a motion as this any subject that it is competent for this house to deal with, save the exceptions which have in themselves been established by the precedents which have accumulated over the years in this house through decisions such as that which might be made at this time.

Now, the only exception to the right to bring before the house a subject that it is appropriate for this house to discuss at any time is, of course, that it shall not relate to some motion already on the order paper. I shall quote Beauchesne, third edition, at page 174:

. . . shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.

Now, working back, it is quite obvious there is no notice on the order paper that precludes consideration of a motion of this nature. Second, there is nothing in any motion proposing that something go to the committee of ways and means that precludes consideration of this amendment. This does 80709-210

Turnover Tax

not deal with any item of estimates which we shall be called upon to consider. Therefore, the only exception which could possibly be raised against the consideration of this motion is that there has been a decision of this house during the current session in regard to the subject matter of the motion.

The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) said that I had laid great stress on the speech from the throne. I laid great stress on the speech from the throne only to the extent that it was in the speech from the throne itself that the word "proposal" was used to describe the amendment to the British North America Act which is under consideration. But let us see whether there has been placed before the house in the speech from the throne anything which calls for a decision. This, Mr. Speaker, I submit is the key to whether or not the exception would relate to a decision by the house.

What was said in the speech from the throne was simply this, as it appears at page 2 of Hansard for January 30:

The provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals and to proposals for constitutional amendments which may require to be submitted to you before the close of the present session.

That, Mr. Speaker, is simply information communicated to the house. My reference to this was not because any decision had been reached on that but because it was in that very paragraph that one of these amendments, which is of course the amendment under consideration, was described as a proposal along with the other amendments. No decision has been reached by the house in regard to a statement prepared by the government and placed in spoken form by His Majesty's representatives. AH that this says is that the provincial governments are at present giving consideration to these proposals. Mr. Speaker, it did not require any decision of this house to determine whether or not that was so. The fact that the house has not tried to declare that they were not being considered by the provincial governments neither strengthens nor does it weaken the argument in favour of permitting an amendment of this kind.

It is only by carrying a precedent of this kind to the point of absurdity that one can see just where a decision of this nature would leadi. Let me refer to another statement of a similar nature in the speech from the throne.

The Supreme Commander, General Eisenhower, has recently visited Canada to consult with the government and the chiefs of staff.

Is that a decision which would prevent anyone here from introducing a proper

Turnover Tax

resolution at some stage that we would welcome a visit by General Eisenhower to this country, or that we approve of the decisions which have been made by General Eisenhower? Certainly, if this constitutes a decision which precludes discussion of a subject mentioned in an informative statement of that kind, it would be equally true that the fact the house has passed the speech from the throne which informs us of the very welcome fact that General Eisenhower was here would prevent us from discussing anything connected with a statement which might be made by General Eisenhower, or any views we might like to express in regard to views he may place before us.

Then, let us look at another subject in regard to which information was given to this house in the speech from the throne. Again I quote from the speech from the throne:

The urgent need of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project In relation to the security of this continent is becoming increasingly apparent.

If the mention by the dominion government of this proposal to place before Westminster, should the provinces approve, the request for an amendment to the British North America Act is to be regarded as something in respect of which a decision has been made, to such an extent that it would preclude discussion here, then I would say that obviously it would be equally true that we must decide that the decision has been reached with regard to the St. Lawrence seaway which would preclude the possibility of a resolution being introduced in this house which would call for an expression of opinion by the hon. members of this house to the effect that the government of Canada should proceed with the construction of the power development on the St. Lawrence if co-operation with the United States does not in some way become a reality. One could go through statement after statement in the speech from the throne which was merely indicated as a statement which would give information to the house. If those are to be regarded as decisions which preclude the introduction of either a substantive motion by way of the ordinary notice or a motion by way of an amendment introduced in this manner, then all that would be necessary to prevent the effective introduction of motions of any kind during the session would be to make brief references to enough subjects in the speech from the throne; then effective debate in this parliament would be completely stultified simply by the fact that the speech from the throne had been passed. I submit, Mr. Speaker, in all earnestness that the result of such a decision would create an established decision on record-which future interpreters of the rules of this house

would be called upon to recognize-which would invite an absolute barrier being placed upon debate simply by the device of including in the speech from the throne every subject which might conceivably come up during the session and which the government did not itself intend to introduce by way of legislation or by some motion. One hesitates to use such a term, Mr. Speaker, but a decision of this kind could establish within the framework of a democracy the effective practices of dictatorship.

Oh, oh.

Mr. Drew:

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize how far a decision of this kind could go in precluding all discussion except that which is formally introduced by the government itself.

Mr. Garson:

Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, may I say that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has established a point upon which perhaps most of us can agree. But there is another point upon which we would find great difficulty in agreeing with him. When a clause such as that which he has just read to the house is included in the speech from the throne, it indicates the cogent possibility of legislation at some time later on in the session. It would seem that, once such a clause has been so included, quite apart from any effect that may have resulted from the passage by the house of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, it is improper to introduce any amendment or other motion which anticipates such government legislation.

For example, let us suppose that in this particular case the provinces, instead of reaching a disagreement with regard to the desirability of this sales tax amendment, had, we will say, less than a week ago advised the federal government that they were in agreement as to the necessity for this amendment; then suppose that we for any one or more of a number of reasons did not find it convenient to introduce, until a week or ten days hence, the joint address which was required to secure the passage of such an amendment. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it would not then be open to any member of the opposition, by a motion such as that moved by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), to force the government, in advance of the time that it might wish to introduce the joint address, to bring it into the house and have it debated; because I think it is a generally accepted principle that as to when those measures of government policy which are indicated in the speech from the throne are brought in, the government has the privilege of bringing them in, at any time that fits in with the public business which is in charge of the government.

Mr. Mclvor:

I should just like to state

how the matter appears to me, Mr. Speaker. Not being a lawyer, this looks to me like a matter of legal technicalities, not clear to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) or to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton); otherwise they could explain it in far shorter time than they have taken.