March 28, 1916

PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS.

CON

Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

After the vote was taken at yesterday's sitting on the amendment proposed by Mr. Bennett on Mr. Stevens's resolution, I decided that, the amendment having been voted in the affirmative, there was no need to again propose the principal motion as amended to the House.

I have since carefully examined this question and I have ascertained by referring to authors that the question as amended should have again been placed before the House.

Here is what May says, at page 291, 11th edition:

If the House resolve " that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," the original question is put; but if they resolve that such words should not stand part of the question by negativing that proposition when put, the next question proposed is that the words proposed to be substituted, be inserted or added instead thereof. This latter question being resolved in the affirmative, the main question so amended is put.

Bourinot, at page 439, 3rd edition, says:

If the amendment be negatived, the Speaker will again propose the main question, and a debate may ensue thereon or another amendment may then be submitted. On the other hand, If the House adopt the amendment, then the Speaker will again propose the question in these words: " Is It the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion so amended."

There are also numerous precedents, amongst others, at the sitting of the 6th June, 1904, as reported at page 431 of the Votes and Proceedings of that year, on a motion of Mr. Champagne, that Bill No. 110, " An Act respecting the Ottawa Electric Company," be read a third time, Mr. Puttee moved in amendment that all the word's after the word " that " in the main motion be left out and that other words be substituted therefor. This amendment of Mr. Puttee having been voted in the affirmative, the principal motion, as amended, was again submitted to the House.

Another precedent is found in the Votes and Proceedings of the session of 1906-07, at page 185. On a motion of Mr. Heron, Mr. Knowles presented an amendment

which proposed to omit all the words of the principal motion after that, to add other words. There was a vote on that amendment of Mir. Knowles' and it was voted in the affirmative. After this vote on the amendment, the motion as amended was' submitted to the House and accepted on division.

After the vote taken at yesterday's sitting, Sir Robert Borden proposed the adjournment of the House and nothing prevented making this motion; but Mr. Stevens' motion, as amended, is still pending and should be on the Orders of the Day to be taken at another sitting, and I have given instructions to the Clerk to reinstate the motion on the Orders of the Day in its proper place.

Topic:   PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Subtopic:   PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

Will the motion of the

hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) be treated as a private member's motion, or will it be included among the Government Orders? If it is left in public Bills and Orders, it will never be called.

Topic:   PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Subtopic:   PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

It will not

change its place, because that is where it was before. If, however, there is any great desire to have a vote upon it, I think we shall endeavour to find some convenient time to take one. I suppose the point of my hon. friend's suggestion is that some hon. members who voted against the amendment may vote for the original motion as amended. If any hon. gentlemen feel that they would like to make apparent their position in that regard, we will afford an opportunity of having a vote upon it.

Topic:   PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Subtopic:   PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

I have no reason to suppose that any members are desirous of changing their votes; I simply wanted to make the procedure complete.

Topic:   PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Subtopic:   PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

The procedure

is complete enough as far as it has gone, because the motion has been restored to the Order Paper. The only possible additional procedure would be a vote upon the main motion. Of course, that vote would not be taken unless Public Bills and Orders were reached, or unless we should move to proceed to Public Bills and Orders for the purpose of having it taken up again.

Topic:   PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Subtopic:   PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS.
Permalink
LIB

George Ewan McCraney

Liberal

Mr. McCRANEY:

May I suggest that a vote be taken at the end of the division which will take place on the motion before the House to-day, in regard to the Shell Committee?

Topic:   PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Subtopic:   PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I will consider that suggestion.

Topic:   PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Subtopic:   PROCEDURE ON AMENDMENTS.
Permalink

EXPORTATION OF NICKEL.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN laid on the table of the House an Order in Council with regard to the exportation of nickel. He said: I have not laid on the table of the House the report of Mr. Graham Bell, but I will send a copy of it to my right hon. friend.


FIRST READINGS OF SENATE BILLS.


Bill No. 72, for the relief of Charles William Wilson.-Mr. Fripp. Bill No. 73 for the relief of Aimee Rita Elliott.-Mr. Douglas.


QUESTION OF 'PRIVILEGE.

DEBATE ON PROHIBITION.


Mr. P. A. iSEIGUIN: (l'Assomption) Mr. 'Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I read this morning in the Citizen the following paragraph in its report of the proceedings of the House yesterday:' Mr. P. A. Sfeguin, of l'Assomption, said he was against prohibition in any form. It was worse than licensed liquor selling because it led to the establishment of blind pigs. People whq had voted for prohibition in many parts of the province of Quebec, said Mr. Sfiguin, would not do so again. I did not say I was against prohibition in any form, but that I was1 Opposed to local prohibition, claiming that so long as alcoholic liquors are manufactured and imported in the country, people will drink, and if there is no licensed liquor selling, there will be blind pigs or other places where the liquor will be sold secretly, and where, not only drunkards will go and satisfy their deadly craving, but where also our boys will go and get addicted to drinking and a thousand other evils and degradations even more disgraceful. I stated I was in favour 'of prohibiting the manufacture and importation of alcoholic liquors under certain restrictions, believing that there will be found the remedy to the evil we deplore. The Citizen makes me say also that in many sections of Quebec those who voted for prohibition would how vote the other way if they were given the chance. I simply said that in certain sections of the province of Quebec, many electors had given



a vote favourable to prohibition because they had no opportunity to consider whether that system was a proper remedy for the evil complained of, and that they were rather guided by the men favourable to this measure of local prohibition, who told them not to listen to the voice of those who opposed prohibition, charging that the latter's motives were rather irreligious.


SHELL, DELIVERIES.


On the Orders of the Day:


LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL:

I wish very briefly to make a statement as a question of privilege. Shortly after the debate upon the resolution of my right hon. friend concerning the Shell Committee I wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Imperial Munitions Board with reference to certain statements made by the hon. Solicitor General and myself, as follows:

March 17, 1916.

J. W. Flavelle, Esq.,

Chairman Munitions Board,

Ottawa, Ontario.

Dear Mr. Flavelle:

I am enclosing herewith two tabulated statements with reference to the companies furnishing shells and fuses referred to by the Hon. Mr. Meighen in his remarks in Parliament on Tuesday, March 14.

I will be very much obliged indeed if you will fill in the different columns in order that we may have first hand information on the subjects.

Yours very sincerely.

Accompanying that was a tabulated statement which I now hold in my hand. The Chairman of the Munitions Board very kindly asked me to go to his office to receive the information, and in my presence he filled in a few of the memoranda in pencil. The remainder was filled in before he gave it to me, I know not whether by himself or by his clerks. However, it was official. In order that there anay be no question whatever about the actual facts of this case, or as to who might be right and who might be wrong, I wish to read this statement coming from the Imperial Munitions Board. It ie as follows:

s :

r- U '

Topic:   SHELL, DELIVERIES.
Permalink

March 28, 1916