Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who is opposing second reading of the bill, having based himself on some examples
he gave to the house, is confusing two things. When we have before the house a bill to change the name of a company-Allstate or any other-that is one matter. But these bills have all been before another committee. That committee has heard all the evidence. It has gone into all the proof which is available to this House of Commons, and the bills are now before us with all that evidence accepted and approved.
Mr. Speaker, I think on the date that the hon. member referred to I raised this question on a point of order, and Your Honour ruled upon it. Because you were generous enough to allow the hon. member to proceed a certain distance and ask certain questions or read certain evidence, I do not think it sets a binding precedent. We raised an objection then and you ruled upon it. We respectfully submit that what the hon. member is trying to do now is something altogether different from the examples he gave in dealing with an insurance company. These bills are before the house complete in all detail, and you are right, Mr. Speaker, when you say that all we can do now is to deal with the principle whether there should be an annulment or a dissolution of the marriage or whether there should not. As you have cited quite properly, I do not think we are in a position to go into all the evidence, as the hon. member suggests. If he wants to go into all the evidence for the sake of giving this house a lot of information it really does not need, and which it already has anyway in print, then I think he is completely out of order.
Topic: ALETHEA SARAH IVY FOWLER