Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would care to make his request for precedence apply to the next sitting, I have no objection. But I think there is a responsibility to see that those who are concerned with these matters are aware of any changes. If we do not do it in the way of giving precedence at the next sitting, then there may be some hon. members who are unaware that this is the way we are proceeding.
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make it very clear that if the hon. member now asks for unanimous consent to his bill being given precedence the next time these matters are up for discussion, we would be quite happy to agree to it.
It is item No. 407, an act respecting the Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada. Are there any similar requests at this time? Very well, those two items, with the consent of the house, will be given precedence on Tuesday next.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the consent of the house to deal with the first nine items on the order paper en bloc. They are all bills for consideration in committee which have been passed by the other place and have been considered in our miscellaneous private bills committee. To save the time of the committee I would beg leave of the house to having them treated en bloc because the list of divorce bills from the Senate is growing and growing. We have over 400 items on the order paper right now. That is the only reason for asking that they be treated en bloc.
Mr. Speaker, I would object to that procedure. I have some remarks to make on the first one and I would certainly hope that the hon. member is not suggesting they are all as bad as the first one may be.
The hon. member is suggesting that items 1 to 9 be referred to the committee of the whole. When the Speaker has left the chair and the chairman has assumed the chair he will recognize any hon. member who may wish to speak.
Mr. Chairman, this is one of the first bills to pass both courts of this parliament, and it is of interest because in this
case we have the right of a double examination, which the house is being asked to consider in another bill that is now before it, and to eliminate part of the protection that is now given. I think this should be borne in mind when we are discussing this particular case. It should also be borne in mind that the Senate has heard this case and the miscellaneous private bills committee has heard it. These bills were not given any consideration in the miscellaneous private bills committee, as far as I know; they were taken en bloc. Therefore I think a discussion on this bill will indicate that this is not an acceptable practice, and also that the other place is not sufficiently capable or trained to handle these particular bills.
In this case Madeleine-Francoise Hankowski is asking for a divorce from her husband Jan Paul Hankowski. There are several things involved here that are a disgrace to Canada, certainly a disgrace to this type of procedure and certainly a disgrace to at least one of the lawyers in it. After you hear the evidence, Mr. Chairman, we will ask that this lawyer be disbarred. The people who heard this case were not unaware of points of law. They were Senators Bradley, Q.C.-if it means anything, and in this case it does not -Burchill, Cameron and Gershaw. These gentlemen heard this case in the other place.