Mr. Cowan:

Mr. Speaker-

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): Order, please. Since the amendment has not been accepted as yet we shall have to wait until a decision is taken before the hon. member is recognized.

Mr. Cowan:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if someone wants to speak on the main motion and has not yet spoken, can he not be heard at this time?

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Tardif): I have already indicated that until a decision is made by the Speaker we are not going to recognize any hon. members.

Mr. Forresiall:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the main motion is still before the house. Is it active and viable? If it is, I wish to point out that I have not spoken on either of the debates during the last year and a half and I would not mind making a few remarks on this, if it is just a question of killing time.

Mr. Speaker:

Is the house ready for the question ?

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Speaker, I think we were awaiting Your Honour's return to the chair so that there could be a consideration of the procedural validity of the amendment that has been placed before Your Honour. I do not have the text of it before me in writing, but as I heard it I believe the amendment proposes that the bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration of it be deferred until something else, namely a referendum, has taken place.

It seems to me there are precedents which suggest that an amendment not to read a bill a second time must be one of all out opposition and must not be a motion that offers some other declaration of policy

I now have the amendment before me, thanks to the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) who has supplied me with a copy of it in French, and I suggest it is contrary to citation 393(1) in Beauchesne's fourth edition which says:

An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading.

There is another citation which says that an amendment of this kind must be opposed to

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif).]

DEBATES November 22, 1967

the bill in toto, but this amendment is not opposed to this bill in toto. It is opposed to further consideration of the bill-if my comprehension of French is as good as I hope it is-until the Canadian population has given approval to it by answering a question in a referendum. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what is placed before you in this motion is a condition, or a substantive proposition, namely that there be a referendum on this question, and that such a proposition, while perfectly proper under certain circumstances, is not valid as an amendment to the second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker:

Are there any further submissions for the consideration of the Chair, from a procedural standpoint?

Has the hon. member who moved the amendment now before the house anything to say about its acceptability?

Mr. Caoueile:

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the amendment is quite simple and in no way contradicts or conflicts with the procedure of the house:

That Bill No. C-168 be not read for the second time now, but that all further consideration of the said bill be deferred until the Canadian people approve its principle by a referendum.

Contrary to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has just said, that this amendment goes against the rules of the house, it seems to me that this proposal to defer a bill to the Canadian people by way a referendum in order to know their exact opinion and to find out whether or not they approve of the principle of the bill is entirely in keeping with Canadian parliamentary procedure.

Until the people vote by referendum, let us postpone the study of Bill No. C-168. I do not see at all how that amendment comes in conflict with any rule. The hon. member has the right to move his amendment and to be supported, and it seems to me that the house should have the opportunity to vote on that amendment which suggests that a referendum be held before legislation such as Bill No. C-168 is passed.

o (4:50 p.m.)

Mr. Smallwood:

Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling, may I say that I agree with democracy and would suggest that if you looked for a precedent under the flag debate you might find that we accepted at that time

November 22, 1967 COMMONS

an amendment similar to that which is proposed now.

fTranslation]

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Speaker, I simply

want to say a word to show that even it the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might have seemed, at first, justified, when you read over the motion in its present form, I think that Beauchesne's citation which was just read to us, does not apply to the amendment, as it is drafted now.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, and rightly so, that an amendment to prevent the second reading of the bill means in fact a complete rejection of the bill. This is what happens here. The amendment means simply this: That Bill No. C-168 be not read the second time. It is a total rejection. And the second part, Mr. Speaker, simply adds that any new consideration of a bill such as this one cannot be undertaken unless it has been preceded by a referendum. Why was this added? Well, I suppose it is because we have been presented twice with the same problem. We considered this matter, about 11 or 2 years ago, and it is being reintroduced without having done anything about it. Therefore, it is a pure and simple rejection of the bill and it is requested also that the same matter be not considered again until such time as the Canadian population has been asked to decide through a referendum.

The argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is unacceptable because it is, in fact, a complete rejection of the bill, since the precedent still holds, namely that the matter was considered li years ago. The bill was rejected by parliament and it is felt that the matter should not be raised again unless the public has studied it or has voted on the matter through a referendum.

This is why, in my opinion, the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is unacceptable at the present time, due to the form of the amendment which is entirely legal, which does not violate any precedent and is in accordance with standing orders.

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. Would he deal with my contention that the amendment in effect is a substantive motion introducing a new proposition, namely a referendum?

DEBATES 4583

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence [Translation]

Mr. Gregoire:

No, Mr. Speaker. It does in no way imply a referendum. As worded, the amendment does not suggest that the government hold a referendum. It does not provide for a referendum.

The amendement does not suggest at all the holding of a referendum. It simply asks that the bill be not read a second time and that, if the government wishes to reintroduce the question, it should hold a referendum beforehand. However, the government does not have to introduce the bill. In addition, the amendment does not suggest a referendum, but merely provides that any further consideration of the bill be delayed until the question, submitted to the Canadian people, has been approved in principle. It is not suggested that a referendum be held. If the government does not wish to hold one, let it refrain from doing so. The amendment does not mention that the government is required or has to hold a referendum.

If we vote for the amendment, Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that we vote to request or force the government to hold a referendum on this matter. That is not mentioned in the amendment. The amendment under study does not recommend a referendum; it simply requests that the bill be not given second reading at this time, and that the matter be not submitted again to the house until a national referendum has been held. However, the government does not have to hold this referendum.

Mr. Knowles:

Would the hon. member permit a further question, Mr. Speaker. If the amendment is not suggesting a referendum, then how can it be said that the amendment calls for a total rejection of the bill? Is it not just a temporary rejection until the referendum has been taken?

Mr. Gregoire:

No, it means pure and simple rejection, total rejection of the bill. Now, and this is where the precedent set 18 months ago must be taken into account, as the government was confronted with a similar motion 18 months ago, and as the motion was rejected, this amendment adds: Do not come back to us with a bill similar to this one unless you have held a referendum. You do not have to hold one; if you do not want any, then do not hold one. But if you must come back to us with a bill such as this one, then hold a referendum before doing so.

4584 COMMONS

Amendments Respecting Death Sentence

I say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this is absolutely pure and simple rejection of the bill. At the same time, it means that if ever the government wants to introduce another bill on capital punishment, it will first have to get the principle approved by the people. But there is nothing in that amendment which compels the government to hold a referendum. There is nothing which calls for one. It is pure, simple and complete rejection of the bill.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. After hearing the arguments advanced by hon. members, I am now in a position to express and opinion and make a ruling.

I will refer, first of all, to the argument just advanced by the member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) to the effect that this amendment is in substance a pure and simple rejection of the main motion.

If the member is right, the Chair could not accept this amendment, since we would then have a negation of the principle, and the member should merely vote against the bill instead of trying to do so by way of an amendment.

I should like to refer to the argument presented by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) in which he brought to my attention a precedent. However, I believe there is a distinction in this regard. He referred to the flag debate when we were dealing with a resolution. The type of amendment which is permitted in respect of a resolution is not the same type of amendment which is permitted in the case of second reading of a bill.

I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members citation 394, paragraph one in the French edition of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:

The principle or relevancy in an amendment governs every proposed resolution, which, on the second reading of a bill, must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the house. Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee, nor attach conditions to the second reading of the bill.

That, I believe, is the most obvious defect of this amendment. It sets a condition to approval of the bill in principle, and for that reason, I do not think it is possible to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

DEBATES November 22, 1967

Question.

Five o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:

Is the house ready for the question?

Question.

Mr. Cowan:

Mr. Speaker, it is now five o'clock. I have been here all afternoon. Was unanimous consent given to abolish the private members hour?

[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker:

My information is that

although there may have been an agreement among hon. members, there is no order of the house for the suspension of private members business. In the circumstances the Chair has no alternative but to call the business for today at five o'clock, namely notices of motions and public bills.