Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the subamendment which Your Honour accepted last night. I wish to make it perfectly clear that in doing so I am not in any way expressing opposition to, or discussing, the subject matter of the subamendment. In fact it was our party which in 1961 set up a royal commission to look into the whole question of medical services in Canada. The report of this commission is expected shortly.
My point is that Your Honour, after expressing grave doubts as to the acceptability of the subamendment last night, rendered a decision at 10.08 p.m. without waiting for hon. members to present their views as to the regularity and relevance of the subamendment. In this particular case I submit that Your Honour's ruling departs from established rulings on the principle of the relevancy of subamendments. With respect, it is the normal custom for Mr. Speaker to ask for the views of hon. members before making decisions on points of order such as the one that was before us last night. In the present case, Your Honour did indicate earlier your doubts as to the relevancy of the subamendment and seemed to indicate then that the subamendment was out of order. Subsequently, without any further discussion or opportunity for hon. members to present their views, Your Honour gave a contrary ruling. I and others of my colleagues were prepared to present certain views, and I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had earlier expressed his intention of making his views known to the house.
Under the circumstances I would invite Your Honour, with respect, to reconsider your original decision and invite hon. members to present their views on the relevancy of the subamendment. In any event, may I point out respectfully that in such situations a ruling should not be made without calling for the views of hon. members present.
Subtopic: POINT OF ORDER RESPECTING RULING ON SUB AMENDMENT