Mr. Drew:

On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman; I would hope that we would not continue the nature of the discussions which have disturbed this house in recent days. I do not think what I said was open to that meaning. I am suggesting that it would greatly add to the confidence of this house in the meaning of words if the chair, on this occasion, came to the conclusion that words had their simple, ordinary meaning.

The Deputy Chairman:

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that clarification paragraph. I suppose it would be a very small compliment coming from me if I were to say that those members who have spoken today should be complimented on the work that they have done in connection with this case.

I have done a little myself, but I have had considerable help from those who have spoken.

Now, as this matter has aroused so much debate I presume it is my duty to give some reasons for the ruling that I am about to make. I do that knowing full well that it is said so often in the legal profession that many a judge's case would stand up against appeal if he had not given written reasons to support his decision. The whole question really seems to revolve around the interpretation to be put on the words "further consideration" found in standing order 33. It is submitted by those who oppose the legality of the Prime Minister's motion that further consideration cannot possibly be interpreted as applying to the two different classes of sections which we have before us, the first three of which were called and which certain members of the opposition claim did not receive consideration worthy of the name, and the last three which admittedly have not yet been called.

I think that decision has already been made. I think the position I am in at the moment is not to indicate to the committee what I think the rules of this house should be but what they are. In most, not all, of the submissions made this afternoon there has been a great deal of quotation from statements made in similar debates to this in previous years. While the people who made those speeches, perhaps by their prominence in the life of the country, are entitled to be quoted and listened to with respect, those quotations none the less were arguments and not decisions. We have been told, and it is so, that four somewhat similar incidents have been before this house. In three of those four the question which has been raised as a point of order never came up. In those first three the clauses had been considered and therefore the question as to whether or not it was necessary did not come up and was not argued.

This leaves only the case of 1932, and incidentally in point of time the most recent case of this kind to come before the house. I believe it was the last time closure came before the house, but I am not sure about that. On page 1605 of Hansard for March 31, 1932, Mr. Bennett made this statement:

I beg leave to give notice that, at the next sitting of the committee of the whole house, I shall move that the further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.

There was some discussion at that time, but of course that was the notice and the matter was not before the Chair.

On page 1609, the following day, when the committee resumed Mr. Bennett said:

Before the order is proceeded with, Mr. Chairman, I desire to make the motion of which I

gave notice last evening, that further consideration of the title and clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.

He made some further brief remarks and the chairman put the question. Then Mr. Gardiner, not the present member of the house, rose to a point of order as follows:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is not clause 1 the question that is before the committee at the present time?

The chairman, who was Mr. Hanson of York-Sunbury, said:

Technically speaking, clause 1 was before the committee, but the committee considered every clause of the bill. As a matter of fact, therefore, all the clauses of the bill have been before the committee.

Mr. Gardiner:

On another point of order: Is it possible to have three clauses of a bill considered in committee at the same time? Is it not more correct to say that in accordance with the ruling of the Chair, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of clauses 2 and 3.

The Chairman (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):

I do not know that I should advise the hon. member touching the suggestion which he has just made. I do not understand it to be a point of order.

The chairman then put the question that clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed. It has been agreed, I think, by all-I mean all in this committee- that clause 1 had been called and debated and clauses 2 and 3 had not been called, but it seems to be generally agreed in the discussion here that their subject matter was discussed during the debate on clause 1. In this committee clauses 1, 2 and 3 have been called;-I leave aside for the moment the question of whether they have been considered because this house has made a ruling on that-clause 4 has been called and debated at length. I do not think that it could be seriously contended that the discussion on clause 4 did not range pretty well over clauses 5, 6 and 7 and 1, 2 and 3. At any rate, I find that it did for the purpose of this section.

Now, I am not in the least unmindful of the not only impassioned but impressive appeals which have been made to me by members speaking for the opposition in their argument that the Prime Minister's resolution is out of order. I accept that responsibility, as I accept what I consider to be my only responsibility at the moment; not to rule upon the merits or demerits of a motion, not to rule upon the desirability or otherwise of procedure or of a standing order, but to try to come to a conclusion as cold-bloodedly as I can as to whether or not the motion submitted by the Prime Minister is in order. In

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation accordance with the rules and the practice of this house, based on the last decision in 1932,

I so rule.

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling to the house.

Mr. Nowlan:

They are all the same.

Mr. Drew:

Tear up the rule books now.

Mr. Rowe:

Precedents are established for anything. You can do as you like in the future. If any of you young fellows ever become Prime Minister, you can do anything.

Mr. Harris:

We like you around.

Mr. Rowe:

You have precedents for anything. Close parliament; throw away the key; throw away the rule books. Everything is set. Things that are of interest to the country, don't debate them.

The Deputy Chairman:

For the information of the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-the hon. member for Kamloops raised the point of order-I propose, before officially submitting it to the house, to read them the report I propose to make on this ruling I have made.

In committee of the whole, with respect to the Prime Minister's motion, Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill had not been before the committee and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee and, therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses could not come within ambit of the proposed motion. The chairman ruled that in accordance with rules and practices of the house the motion is in order.

Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:

Mr. Speaker, in committee of the whole, Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moved that at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.

Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill have not been before the committee and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee, and therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses could not come within the ambit of the proposed motion.

The chairman ruled that in accordance with the rules and the practice of the house, the motion is in order.

Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:

The question before the house is an appeal from a ruling of the chairman of the committee of the whole.

4518 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation In committee of the whole, Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moved that at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not further be postponed.

Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill have not been before the committee and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee, and therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses could not come within the ambit of the proposed motion.

The chairman ruled that in accordance with the rules and the practice of the house, the motion is in order.

Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):

Mr. Speaker, before you put the question will you hear me on a point of order? My point of order is, sir, that on other occasions when an appeal has been made from the committee of the whole house you have based your action on citation 428 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads as follows:

In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which lie has decided. The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the house in the language reported to him and put the question. [DOT]'That the decision of the chairman be confirmed." No discussion is allowed on the appeal.

The point I want to bring Your Honour's attention to is that you appear to be overlooking something which has been an established practice of the house and simply has been in abeyance because the issue has not been raised for a great number of years. This method of appealing from the committee of the whole house to the Speaker in days gone by followed two courses and, as Bourinot points out on page 395 of his fourth edition:

If a question of order arise, the chairman will decide it himself, unless it be deemed more advisable to refer the matter to the speaker in the house itself.

Then he quotes rule 14, which was applicable at the time this book was written.

Rule 14 provides: "The chairman of the committee of the whole house shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order, subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house on receiving a report thereof."

Then in a very interesting note at the bottom of the page the editor of this book, Mr. Bourinot, says:

The first appeal to the house under this rule occurred in the session of 1885, and there have been several since that date, but it has inconveniences, since the house is called upon suddenly

and without debate to decide a question of order which many of its members may not have heard discussed in committee, and the result is, in many cases, a political, rather than a judicial vote, which might not stand the test if strict parliamentary rules were applied.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in considering matters such as these one has to take very carefully into consideration whether or not a separate group of decisions may be established in committee of the whole house apart from decisions established by Speakers. As I understood Your Honour on other occasions when we were having this type of appeal, you stated or implied that you had no part other than simply to put the vote to the house. I am suggesting for your careful consideration that you have two courses of action to follow. The first is to consider the motion itself, the point of appeal, and give assistance or advice to the chairman of the committee of the whole house who may then revise his ruling in committee of the whole house. Your second course of action is that if you are satisfied the rules have been satisfactorily obeyed, that the precedents have been followed, you may proceed to put the vote as you have done on several occasions in the past.

Bourinot goes on to discuss this on page 396. He deals with the first matter which is now in front of you, the report in writing from the chairman of the committee and the fact that the Speaker will put the question, and then he says:

If the committee wish assistance or confirmation on a point of procedure on which they are in doubt, or on which the chairman has not expressed or does not wish to express an opinion, they may ask the advice of the Speaker.

Dealing with that further down he says:

In the former case, where the committee refers to the Speaker for advice, progress is reported on motion duly made, and when the Speaker has given his advice, the committee resumes in accordance with regular practice.

Now, sir, that matter came up for discussion in the House of Commons here on June 6, 1899. The point at issue in committee of the whole house then was whether or not a document which had been referred to in the course of debate should or should not be tabled. The Deputy Speaker, the chairman of the committee, ruled that it was not necessary in his opinion because of a lapse of time that had occurred since it had first been mentioned. Then a procedural dispute developed as to how the appeal should be made to the Speaker.

Sir Charles Tupper was interested in the matter and he said, as reported in column 4448 of Hansard for June 6, 1899:

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you have given your ruling, and I desire to appeal from your ruling to the Speaker. It is a very important point.

You will note, sir, that he did not say he was appealing to the house. Then considerable discussion occurred. After Sir Charles Tupper had claimed the right to appeal rather than having to go through the business of moving a motion that the committee rise and report, the Deputy Speaker said, as reported in column 4449 of Hansard of that date:

The hon. gentleman will find in Sir John Bourinot, at page 483:

"If it be found expedient in either house to refer a point of order to the Speaker, a member will move that the chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again that day. When the Speaker has resumed, the chairman will report that the committee wishes to be instructed as to the point in question."

Then the committee had a little trouble with regard to the motion to rise and report, which was defeated and they were left in a state of suspended animation.

It appeared then that things had come to an impasse. In column 4451 of the same volume Sir Charles Tupper spoke at some length with regard to this matter and read from Bourinot of that particular period, an earlier volume than the one I have here. He also referred to points of order similar to that which had occurred in 1885 and 1886. This is what he read from the Bourinot that was in his possession in 1899:

If a question of order arise in committee, the chairman will decide it himself, unless it be deemed more advisable to refer the matter to the Speaker. Rule 76 provides that a question of order arising in committee of the whole shall be decided by the chairman, subject to an appeal to the house, but his order to the committee can only be censured by the house on the Speaker receiving a report thereof.

May I indicate here that rule 76 has come down to us with only the slightest modification and appears as standing order 59 (4), which reads:

The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.

I note that in the rule book of 1922 that ruling is substantially the same as it was in 1899 and as it is at the present time. Our present rule has modified the one of 1922 by leaving out two or three inconsequential words, and the rule that was then No. 14 read: The chairman of the committee of the whole house shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the house, on receiving a report thereof.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in 1899 there was a firm course of action established in the House of Commons at this particular stage in its proceedings when the committee of the

31. 1956 4519

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation whole house asks for an appeal and expects in that appeal to get a decision or advice from the Speaker on a point of order that has been raised; or, failing that, the second course of action which is putting the question.

In column 4452 of Hansard for June 6, 1899, Sir Charles Tupper said these words:

It is out of respect to the Speaker that the practice I refer to has been followed-

He had been referring to the practice of 1885 and so on.

-because the Speaker is considered the appellate authority who settles the practices, not only for the house, but the committee, and the chairman of the committee has not the right to prevent the Speaker regulating, if desired by anyone in the committee, the point in dispute.

He goes on to point out how that appeal to the Speaker may be arrived at.

I said that on June 6, 1899, there had been a little difficulty and some uncertainty in the committee. On June 7 of that year the Deputy Speaker rising at the commencement of committee proceedings said this, as reported in column 4553 of Hansard:

With the permission of the house, before we proceed with the consideration of this bill, I would like to make a full statement, in view of what occurred last night.

With the view of preventing any such misunderstanding with respect to the procedure on the questions that arose during yesterday's sittings in committee of the whole, and on the appeal to the house from the decision of the chairman of the committee, I may state that I have referred to the authorities on such subjects, and find the following rules laid down authoritatively.

Then he gives the four rules which were the authority of that day and which should pertain to the present. Here they are:

1. If the committee wishes assistance or information on a point of procedure on which they are in doubt, or on which the chairman has not expressed or does not wish to express an opinion they may ask the advice of the Speaker. But! as a rule of practice, the chairman alone is responsible for the business of the committee, and no appeal can be made from his decision on a point of procedure except to the house.

He then goes on to give the authority. The second rule is:

2. In the former case, where the committee refers to the Speaker for advice, progress is reported on motion duly made, and when the Speaker has given his advice, the committee resumes in accordance with the regular practice of the house.

The third and fourth deal with putting the question and what happens if the Speaker be absent. I bring this out to indicate the two courses of action which are open, to indicate that this is a practice which has been firmly established in the House of Commons but which has not been called into use for a great many years until just this last week or so. In the interval the collective memory of the House of Commons has forgotten the practice

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation which was authoritative in the past and the present rule dealing just with appeals to the house, as it states, was in days gone by a reference to the Speaker for his decision and advice. If he was satisfied that the ruling made by the chairman was sound I presume he would simply put the question.

Mr. Speaker:

Before the hon. member proceeds further would he be kind enough to give me the page in Hansard of 1899 where the Speaker laid down those rules?

Mr. Churchill:

It was the Deputy Speaker and I think overnight between June 6 and 7 he must have consulted Mr. Speaker. This will be found in columns 4553 and 4554.

I suggest that the Speaker's duty, which I know he clearly understands himself, is to understand everything that comes before this house and to determine whether or not it is in accord with the rules and traditions of parliament. Beauchesne's 1922 edition refers to Hatsell at page 117 as follows:

For the Speaker is not placed in the chair merely to read every bit of paper which any member puts in his hands in the form of a question; but it is his duty to make himself perfectly acquainted with the orders of the house and its ancient practice, and to endeavour to carry those orders and that practice into execution.

I suggest that while perhaps that practice may be called ancient, nevertheless it is sound. I took the trouble to investigate the English practice, and I would refer you to May's fifteenth edition at page 516. I find that in England they have used this method all along of asking advice from the Speaker, as well as simply putting the question as to whether the chairman's ruling should be sustained. I quote from page 516 as follows:

In 1889 appeal was made to the Speaker regarding extensive alterations made by the committee on the tithe rent-charge recovery bill. He stated that, whilst he desired to safeguard the rights and jurisdiction of the chairman of ways and means in giving an opinion on a matter of committee procedure, and although he could not, as Speaker, stop the bill on the point of order that the bill was a new bill, he unhesitatingly affirmed that the practice of the house had been, in a case of this kind, to withdraw a bill which had been so dealt with, and to introduce another bill in an amended form on which the decision of the house could be obtained upon a second reading. The bill was thereupon withdrawn.

I emphasize the fact that this was an appeal to the Speaker for his advice. His advice was accepted by the committee and the bill was withdrawn.

On 27 January 1913 the Speaker was asked to express his opinion as to certain amendments which it was proposed to move to the franchise and registration bill, then being considered in committee of the whole house. The Speaker-

I omit a few words which are not applicable.

-said that the admission of any one of the amendments to which his attention had been directed would so alter the bill as to make it a new bill, and that he would advise the house under the circumstances that the bill should be withdrawn and leave be asked for the introduction of a new bill.

I think that shows clearly that two courses are open to a committee of the whole house, in England as in Canada. I checked the British Hansard to see what happened, and I find that on January 24, 1913, Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. Lloyd George were engaged in the discussion of a point of order. Mr. F. E. Smith is reported in column 879 of the British Hansard of January 24, 1913, as follows:

I ask your ruling at once, before the right hon. gentleman proceeds-as it might have consequences no one would desire if the view I am submitting to you is right-as to whether that matter falls within your competence to decide or whether it is not a matter for Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker alone.

He was addressing those remarks in committee to the chairman. Then Mr. Lloyd George, who was also interested in this point of order, went on to say:

The question which I am putting to you, sir, is whether you will rule during the committee stage that the bill has been so transformed that you could not proceed with it during the committee stage. I certainly am not in any sense challenging the opinion of Mr. Speaker, because Mr. Speaker has not given a ruling upon the point, and I am certain that if he did X would certainly challenge it except with Mr. Speaker in the chair. What I want a ruling upon is whether you in committee may feel that the bill has been so transformed as to be a totally different bill that you could not allow any progress to be made with it.

Then the chairman said this:

My answer to the right hon. gentleman is that, in my view, the only thing that concerns me as chairman is whether each amendment as it comes up in turn is in order-that is to say, within the scope of the bill-and otherwise in order. I have nothing to do with the question which appears to be raised, the question of what the cumulative effect of amendments may be with regard to future stages of the bill. That does not fall in any way within my jurisdiction. I should certainly not have any power to stop the bill in committee, however many amendments are proposed and carried, if each one individually was in order.

That was on Friday, and on Monday following the prime minister rose in his place and asked for the advice of the Speaker with regard to this trouble which had arisen in committee. Mr. Speaker is reported in column 1020 as follows:

I believe I should be meeting the general convenience of the house if I were to state now what my view would be supposing certain amendments to the franchise bill were to be admitted. I will say this: If the amendments of which notice has

been given by the government, and one or two of the amendments designed to grant women suffrage

were to be inserted in the bill, my opinion is that under those circumstances the bill would be substantially a new bill. Therefore, in accordance with the practice of the house, it ought to be withdrawn and a fresh bill ought to be introduced.

I bring forward these examples to show, Mr. Speaker, that there are two courses of action open; that when you yourself are presented with an appeal from the committee of the whole house it is within your rights and obviously your duty to examine that appeal and decide whether or not the decision reached within the committee is in accordance with the established rules and precedents of the house. Otherwise, if that is not done, it is quite possible that a body of decisions made by the chairman of the committee of the whole house would be set up, which, I think, would be apparent if that practice had prevailed in the past or prevailed in the United Kingdom House of Commons now, in that all our reference books would contain precedents and citations from deputy speakers. There are none of those anywhere. The references are always to decisions reached by Speakers themselves. I think the Speaker has an overriding responsibility, and particularly does that apply when a new matter comes to the House of Commons in committee of the whole house.

When some new decision has to be made for which there are no Speaker's decisions to go upon, what position are we placed in at that time? I think that is the position we are in right now. We have something now in front of us on which heretofore in the House of Commons no decision has been made. Are we now simply to have a vote on the decision reached by the chairman of the committee of the whole house, without an opportunity for the Speaker himself to examine that ruling and see whether it is in accordance with established precedents?

I think not. I think that here the duty of the Speaker overrides the duty of the chairman in the committee of the whole house, as in any other committee, and that when a report comes from the committee of the whole house, such as this, he must first examine that report and decide whether or not he will advise the committee of the whole house, because it is obviously in difficulty or, having decided that the matter is in order, soundly based on precedent, then he may put the question.

If it is an entirely new matter, I think the Speaker should give it consideration and bring to bear upon it the benefit of his great experience, just as has been done in this example I have quoted from the United Kingdom House of Commons, where the Speaker himself was appealed to, to make decisions which were considered to be not

31. 1956 4521

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation within the competence of the chairman of the committee of the whole house. I use that word "competence" in the proper technical sense, because no matter how able a chairman of the committee of the whole house may be he is working within a restricted field.

The same would apply, surely, to other chairmen of committees, as we have seen here where the chairman of the committee of the whole house may be spelled off for a while. I would not say any one of the members of the house, but in rotation various members are given the opportunity to occupy the place of the chairman, and it is conceivable that trouble might arise in the committee of the whole house when someone of inexperience was in the chair. Could he then make a decision and simply have that decision upheld by a vote of the house without the Speaker, a man of experience, the custodian of the rules of the House of Commons, passing his opinion upon that ruling?

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):

I shall detain the house only one very brief moment. The wording of the old paragraph 58 (3), and I am quoting from the third edition of Beauchesne, is:

The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house;

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose and said, "I appeal your ruling to the house."

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words in connection with the point of order-

We heard you.

Mr. Knowles:

-raised by my hon. friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. In the course of my brief remarks I shall answer the point which the Minister of Finance has just made. In fact it is one of the points on which I have made a few notes.

It seems to me that the point the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre made about a body of rulings being built up is extremely important, as Your Honour is well aware, because it has been quite a chore for you at this session.

Mr. Speaker:

Hear, hear.

Mr. Knowles:

Votes and Proceedings have to include all the rulings you make from the chair. Indeed, not only are your rulings on points of order included in Votes and Proceedings, but various other statements you feel called upon to make from time to time are included in Votes and Proceedings or the Journals. As hon. members are aware, the

4522 HOUSE OF

Northern Ontario Pipe Line Corporation Journals occupy a more official place, so far as the records of the house are concerned, than is the case with respect to Hansard. However, rulings made by the chairman of the committee of the whole house do not result in the statement by the chairman being included in the Journals.

In other words, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said, a body of judgments, which may have a very great bearing on the future proceedings of the house and of the committee of the whole house, is being built up without the sanction of being reviewed by Mr. Speaker and his opinions thereon included in the Journals. I recognize as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has had to recognize, that this is dipping back into a practice that has fallen somewhat into disuse, but it seems to me that an issue such as the one with which we are confronted today, important as it is, raises the question as to whether or not the Speaker should merely put the question to the house or whether he should examine the report and express his views thereon.

The Minister of Finance read from the old standing order 58 (3), which is now 59 (4), and which reads as follows:

The chairman shall maintain order in the committees of the whole house, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the house-

I do not recall the exact words I used, but I have no reason to doubt that what I said was that I appealed the chairman's ruling to the house. I would point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that that is in the nature of an appeal to a higher court. I can imagine that in his practice as a lawyer he has had occasion to appeal cases to a higher court. For all I know he may have gone right to the Supreme Court of Canada in his practice as a lawyer. I do not think he would be satisfied if he took a case to the supreme court and all the supreme court did was vote among the nine justices on the appeal without hearing argument or considering the merits of the case.