I wonder if I might rise to a point of order? I do so with great respect for the hon. member who is now speaking, but it seems to me we have now reached a point in this debate where the rules of debate might be complied with by all of us a little more closely than, is sometimes the case. I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) did a service last evening when he drew attention to citation 338 in Beauchesne's third edition. If I might presume to say so, I thought Your Honour made an excellent ruling on the point. Citation 338 deals with the situation when there is an amendment to a motion. I need not go over all the ground that the member for Winnipeg South Centre dealt with, but may I just quote the last sentence of that important citation:
In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
Your Honour ruled, and I thought quite fairly on the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, that when there was a motion and an amendment before the house as alternative propositions it was possible and perhaps desirable, that they should be discussed in relation to each other. But what about the situation when we have a subamendment? There is now before the house a subamendment to the amendment. I admit that the terms of the subamendment are by way of alternative to the amendment, but I would say that although it is possible in discussing the subamendment to discuss its terms in relation to the terms of the amendment, it should not be possible at this
stage of the debate to go behind the amendment to discuss not only the main motion itself but to discuss things which may not even be related to the main motion.
I submit that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Dinsdale) at the moment is a long way from what is before the house, namely, the relationship between two alternatives, that of the amendment of my leader -and that of the subamendment moved by the Progressive Conservative group. The point of order I raise is this: should not the debate at this time be confined at least to the relative merits of the amendment and the subamendment?