Hon. JAMBS SUTHERLAND (North Oxford).
I do not think the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has fairly presented the case to the House. The case he quoted is not analogous to this. In that paiticulai case a Bill was reported by the committee, and on strong statements being made that other parties wished to be heard, it was referred back to the committee. To the principle now advocated by the Prime Minister, there was an exception made in that case, and when the Bill was reported and came before the House for the third reading the members of the House were divided on the question as to whether it should be read the third time or laid over. The present case is altogether different. I would say to my hon. friend from Alberta that it would seriously inconvenience the business of the House if we adopted the custom of referring Bills back after they had been thoroughly threshed out in committee, except, as the Prime Minister said, very good cause were shown therefor. In this case I am free to say there is no such cause. There was a very long debate in the committee, nearly the" whole day was spent in the discussion, and the Bill was thrown out by a large majority indeed. Evidently there was very little difference of opinion in the committee as to whether the legislation should be granted. I would be the last member of this House to refuse an opportunity of reconsidering a Bill if good cause were shown,