Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this matter. The point is that the amendment is relevant to the main motion and is actually on the same subject matter. It is merely the latter portion of the amendment which would provide a different remedy. I think this is perfectly consistent. The main part of the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway remains in the motion. The amendment merely alters the general procedure in dealing with the problem. I believe it is certainly relevant to the original motion. I do not think I need refer to Beauchesne in too much detail. Citation 203, however, states:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
I think that is a clear and straightforward answer to the question which arises in Your Honour's mind. It is relevant. It is on the same subject matter as the original motion. That leaves it fairly broad. I believe that if one were restricted narrowly in respect of amendments, one would find difficulty in moving amendments. The hon. member who has just moved the amendment has not changed the subject matter of the original motion. His motion would merely alter the means by which the problem of the steadily rising food prices can be met. I think this is such a minor change in the nature of the motion, that it does not substantially affect it. I really cannot see any difficulty which would arise.
If the amendment were accepted and voted upon, it would merely mean that there would be concurrence in the motion has introduced and in her general statement. However the remedy would be slightly different. Instead of the subject matter being referred to a special committee for investigation, it would be referred to the Prices and Incomes Commission. I cannot see any real difficulty here.
Topic: GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic: BUSINESS OF SUPPLY