Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few issues raised by the hon. member.
I disagree with his interpretation of the rules whereby Standing Order 67(1)(h) could be used for such a purpose. I also believe that
his reading of Beauchesne is inaccurate, or at least the interpretation thereof is inaccurate. Let me deal with both issues.
Standing Order 67(1) refers to debatable motions. Standing Order 67(1)(h) refers to a conference with the Senate. That may be quite true. However, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , sixth edition, as my colleague across the way has just indicated, under the general rubric of conferences, it is referred to under the heading ``Intercourse Between the Two Houses''. Citation 743 reads in part:
When the House of Commons does not agree to the Senate amendments, it adopts a motion which states reasons for its disagreement. This is communicated to the Senate by written Message.
It then lists the steps that are to be followed following that kind of a disagreement on Senate amendments to a bill or a motion coming from the House. This of course has never occurred. Therefore, the prerequisite for invoking Standing Order 67(1)(h) that the hon. member brings to our attention has not, in my opinion, been satisfied.
With respect to the calling of such a conference, citation 745 states:
Either House may demand a conference upon the following matters: to communicate resolutions or addresses to which the concurrence of the other House is desired; concerning the privileges of Parliament; to acquire or to communicate statements of facts on which bills have been passed by either House; to offer reasons for disagreeing to, or insisting on, amendments-
The House has not made that kind of determination to make the request to the other House. Therefore, that has not been satisfied either. That is citation 745 which follows citation 743 under the general rubric to which I referred.
For all of these reasons the criteria have not been satisfied. There is absolutely no provision under which the standing order in question should be allowed, that is to say, a motion under Standing Order 67(1)(h), nor is the interpretation of citation 745(1) of Beauchesne accurate as presented to the House by our colleague across the way.
It is quite true of course that this House can invite another House or a committee of another House for a review of whatever, presumably estimates and other things. If the House wants to do that-and I understand that such an invitation has been sent-that is one thing. However, the fact that such an invitation has been sent does not at all satisfy the prerequisite which I have just outlined. Therefore, I believe the hon. member's point of order should be rejected by the Chair.