1927-03-18

Mr. A. M. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to
[Mr. Euler. 1
the House a resolution passed by the Galt city council, also another resolution passed by the village council of Ayr, Ontario, protesting against renewal of the charter to the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, known as Bill No. 78.


Mr. F. W. HAY (North Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a petition from the city council of Stratford, Ontario, with reference to Bill No. 78.


Mr. CLARK:: What is the purport of the petition?


Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to place on the table a resolution from the town council of Sandwich protesting against granting a renewal of the charter to the Georgian Bay Canal Company.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think it well to point out to the hon. members that the regular procedure to bring these protests before the House is by way of petition, and not by way of resolutions passed by municipal councils.



STERLING TRUSTS CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the order Introduction of Bills: Bill respecting the Sterling Trusts Corporation- Mr. Boys.
Hewitt Bostock: Dropped.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155 (from the Senate), respecting Commercial Travellers Mutual Insurance Society.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 156 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dorothy Helen Murray.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 157 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lotta Maria McGregor.-Mr. Spence (Parkdale).
Bill No. 158 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harriett Louisa May MacCarthy.- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 159 (from the Senate), for the relief of Adelaide Mildred Maguire.

Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 160 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dmytro Pushkedra.-Mr. Luchko vich.
Bill No. 161 (from the Senate), for the relief of Muriel Helen Louise Dunn.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 162 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Henry Poultney.-Mr. Church.	*

Private Bills
Bill No. 163 (from the Senate), for the relief of Cecil Chester Richardson.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 164 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bertha Amelia Bertelet.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 165 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Edward Barnaby.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 166 (from the Senate), for the relief of Evelyn May Bateman.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 167 (from the Senate), for the relief of Fannie Louise Dance.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 168 (from the Senate), for the relief of Sarah Simpson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 169 (from the Senate), for the relief of Percy Compton.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 170 (from the Senate), for the relief of Hazel Green Anderson.-Mr. McMillan.
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, would there be any objection to giving these bills second reading now? It would advance them to the committee stage.


Hewitt Bostock: I am in the hands of the House.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No objection.


Hewitt Bostock: Then I will take a
motion covering all the bills. Is that satisfactory?



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-POSSESSION OF WEAPONS

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the first reading of Bill No. 173 (from the Senate) to amend certain provisions of the Criminal Code respecting the possession of weapons:
Hewitt Bostock: There is no mover.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The mover should be
nominated on the order paper.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is prepared to move the first reading of the bill.


Mr. MARCIL:: This is a Senate bill, I
move that it be read a first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTION FOR SECOND READINGS

Hewitt Bostock: When shall these bills
be read the second time?


James Arthurs: We object seriously to
the inclusion of the last bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Very well; the others.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the first.


Hewitt Bostock: With the exception of
the first and the last of these bills, it is moved by Mr. Edwards (Frontenac) seconded by Mr. Arthurs that bills 156, 157, 158, 159 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 and 170 be now read the second time.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I am not rising to object to this motion at all, but I want to call attention to the fact that there are a good many bills of a similar naure on the order paper, where they have stood for days for second reading, and it seems to me that if we are to dispose of these bills in the way proposed it will place them a stage ahead of the others. I submit that all these divorce bills should be treated in the same way, sent to the committee, and taken off the order paper, just as it is proposed to do in this case.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I suggest that probably a more expeditious way would be to conclude the debate on the Georgian bay canal and get that bill across to the committee as speedily as possible. We could then dispose of all these others in rapid succession. However, the government will be prepared to consider my hon. friend's suggestion.


Charles Marcil: I object to the suggestion of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). I have a bill on the order paper coming immediately after the Georgian bay bill, and if these divorce cases are to be advanced' a stage I do not want my bill left behind. It is well for the House to remember that these divorces are a plague and that over 600 divorces were granted in Canada in 1926, according to the statistics.


Hewitt Bostock: Are there any objections? The motion can be entertained only by unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion for second
reading of these bills stands until the next sitting of the House.



MARITIME CLAIMS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: (Prime Minister):	I said yesterday that I
hoped to be able on the orders of the day to-day to make a statement on behalf of the

Maritime Claims
government arising out of the report of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims. I am happy to be able to make that statement this afternoon. As I shall have occasion in the statement to refer to the exact text of the commission I hope hon. members will pardon me if I take the liberty of making free use of the statement I have in my hand.
The Royal Commission on Maritime Claims was appointed on April 7, 1926. The commission submitted its report to the Honourable the Secretary of State on September 23, 1926. As respects its subject matter and recommendations, the report is subdivided as follows:
I.	Money Grants to Provinces.
II.	Transportation and Freight Rates.
III.	Port Development and Export Trade.
IV.	Trade Policy-Forest Produce, Fisheries, Coal and Steel.
V.	Agriculture and Migration.
VI.	New Brunswick Railways.
VII.	General.
There are, in addition, a few paragraphs by way of introduction and conclusion.
The recommendations of the report may be briefly summarized as follows:
Under the heading-I. Money Grants to Provinces.
It is recommended " that the Dominion government should give immediate consideration to the whole of this subject, with a view to a complete revision of the financial arrangements between them and the maritime provinces." and
" that immediate interim lump-sum increases should be made in the payments to the three maritime provinces as follows:
Nova Scotia	 8 875,000
New Brunswick	 600,000
Prince Edward Island	 125,000"
and that
"These interim payments should be continued until the Dominion government has had time to complete its investigation and re-assessment."
Under the heading-II. Transportation and Freight Rates.
It is recommended "that an immediate reduction of 20 per cent be made on all rates charged on traffic which both originates and terminates at stations in the Atlantic division of the Canadian National Railway's-including export and import traffic, by sea, from and to that division,-and that the same reduction be also applied to the Atlantic division propor-

tion of the through rates on all traffic which originates at stations in the Atlantic division -excluding import traffic by sea-and is destined to points outside the Atlantic division." For this puipose the divisional points on the Atlantic division are to be Diamond Junction and Leyis.
It is further recommended, with respect to the policy of the railway companies-as interpreted in the rate structure-" that the railway board should be vested with somewhat
fuller supervisory responsibility,"	"in
its relation to the natural basic products of the country, and the development of these products and associated enterprises," and vested also " with power to order an accounting investigation at their own hand, into the incidence of the railway charge on the costs of production of the commodity, and its relationship to other costs, and to the general trading results of the interest involved ";
Also, that the matter of the system under which flat percentage increases-known as horizontal increases "-were added to railway rates,

in other words, the " incidence of ' horizontal ' war increases "-should be taken into fresh consideration by the railway commission, and that they "should be free to consider the whole question on its merits."
Referring to transportation for Prince Edward Island and the needed railway service improvements, it is recommended "that the railway administration should be asked to make a survey of what is required" and "that the department should make capital provision for the improvements to be undertaken within the shortest possible time;" and, referring to the need for improved ferry boat service, "that the matter be gone into from the point of view of placing at the disposal of the island such satisfactory means of communication as will ensure as regular and complete a service as can reasonably be made," and further "that, so far as the ferry boat service is concerned, it should not be run as part of the railway operations, but should be run by the railway administration under separate account for the department."
Under the heading-III-Port development and export trade-referring to Halifax and St. John; it is recommended "that, in respect of each of these two harbours, the federal government should establish a statutory harbour commission, whose business it would be to see that the port facilities are developed on such a scale as will gradually-but by no means slowly-create channels through which trade can expand both winter and summer."
Referring to harbour facilities in Prince Edward Island, it is recommended, "that the

Maritime Claims
Public Works department make an immediate survey of these harbours, particularly as to wharfage and storage accommodation, with a view to adequate provision being made to meet the needs of the island's produce." Under the heading-IV-Trade policy- forest produce, fisheries, coal and steel-with particular reference to "a mutual trade treaty" for forest products and fish, it is recommended: "that the Dominion government should apply its mind to the proposition in the light of maritime province interests, and having regard also to the position of other provinces concerned with these same products, and to Dominion interests generally."
Referring to coking plants, it is recommended: "that immediate practical steps be taken by the federal authorities in regard to the question of coking plants."
Referring to customs tariff on coal, it is recommended: "that the Tariff Advisory Board should be asked to give immediate consideration to the subject."
Referring to bounties, it is recommended: "that a bonus should be given in respect of steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture, and that the bonus should be calculated on the basis of the present drawback for every ton of coal used in such manufacture."
Under the heading-V-Agriculture and
migration-with reference to the need of closer cooperation between the federal and provincial governments on the question of maritime province colonization, it is recommended, "that the federal authorities should take the matter up with the governments of the three provinces, with a view to a plan being devised for much more active advertisement abroad of the attractions and advantages of the maritime provinces."
Under 'the heading'-VI-New Brunswick railways-referring to the St. John and Quebec railway, it is recommended: "that the government should, with the concurrence of the province, set up an ad hoc tribunal to enquire into the circumstances surrounding this matter, with power, if they are satisfied that the circumstances justify it, to arrange terms and conditions on which the railway should be taken over by the government." Referring to the Kent Northern railway, it is stated that representations were made to the commission that "the present was an appropriate time to reopen negotiations" looking to its "acquisition at a price of $60,000" and it is recommended: "that this be done."
Under the heading-VII General-with respect to fisheries organization, after mentioning that a suggestion had 'been made that there 85
should be a separate branch in the Department of Marine and Fisheries with a Deputy Minister of Fisheries at its head, "whose duties would be confined to that section of the department, and who would therefore be freer to keep in close personal touch with its problems by periodical visits to the fishery areas", the commission states that it recommends "accordingly".
After referring to a conflict of view on the question of closed seasons and conservation, particularly in regard to lobster fishing and on the question also of replanting oyster beds, the commission recommends that: "the deputy minister should take the whole subject into immediate consideration and that after consulting with scientists, fishermen and fish merchants, appropriate and definite regulations should be framed".
The commission recommends, "that the geological department undertake, as soon as possible, a more detailed survey of New Brunswick, and an exhaustive survey of Prince Edward Island for the purposes of re-mapping this province, of investigating its mineral deposits and materials for roadmaking and of examining the possibilities of its clay resources."
With respect to Prince Edward Island, where there are no large industries which would justify the establishment of an institution for technical education, the commission cites the suggestion that the technical education legislation should be given a broad application in their case, and that agricultural education should be deemed to be covered by the term "technical education". The commission recommends "this suggestion to the favourable notice of the department."
Finally the commission mentions that at their request, the Bureau of Statistics had prepared a special memorandum giving the more important statistics of social and economic progress in the maritime provinces since confederation and recommends "the immediate publication of this memorandum".
This concludes the enumeration of the recommendations made by the commission. There are scattered throughout the pages of the report many observations upon conditions in the maritime provinces as well as suggestions, expressions of view and of feeling on the part of the commissioners, as for example: "We feel that a more active and vigorous commercial policy should be developed and that much wider scope should be given to the functions and activities of trade commissioners." The government is prepared carefully to consider whatever the commission has set forth in this manner. With respect to the recommendations themselves, it may serve to

Maritime Claims

bring the proposed action of the government into dearer relief if, in presenting to parliament the statement of the government's attitude with reference thereto, I reverse the order of presentation adopted by the commission and first take up the miscellaneous recommendations which find their place at the end of the report, and proceed therefrom to the far-reaching recommendations which are to be found in earlier subdivisions.
Commencing, then, with the last mentioned recommendation, namely, the immediate publication of a special memorandum giving statistics of social and economc progress in the maritime provinces since confederation, I wouid say that the memorandum is already in type, and that such number of copies will be published as the House may direct.
The government accepts the recommendation made with reference to Prince Edward Island, that, inasmuch as there are no large industries in Price Edward Island which would justify the establishment of an institution for technical education and as agriculture is their principal interest, technical education legislation should be given a broad application, and that agricultural education should be deemed to be covered by the term "technical education," and action is being taken accordingly.
The more detailed survey of New Brunswick and an exhaustive survey of Prince Edward Island which it is recommended the Geological department should undertake is being carried out.
The commission's recommendation with respect to the appointment of a deputy minister whose duties will be confined to what at present constitutes the fisheries section of the Department of Marine and Fisheries will be carried out.
With respect to the commission's recommendations concerning the possible acquisition of the St. John and Quebec railway, and the Kent Northern railway, the government is of the opinion that the matters referred to are, in some particulars, incidental to the larger transportation problems of which mention is made in the report and to which the attention of parliament will be invited at the present session, and that the situation with respect to these railways will in no wise be prejudiced if the course recommended by the commission is permitted to await a knowledge of the probable effect of the adoption of such legislation as may be enacted with respect to maritime railways generally.
The recommendation of the commission, with respect to closer cooperation between the federal and provincial governments on the question of maritime province colonization, accords with the policy of the government as

repeatedly set forth. The federal authorities will cordially welcome that larger measure of cooperation on the part of the provinces which the commission's report recognizes as both desirable and necessary.
With reference to the natural basic products of the maritime provinces, namely, agriculture, fish, timber and coal, the government shares the view expressed by the commission that aspects that arise from the character of these natural basic products of the maritime provinces "lie at the very foundation of the economic prosperity of these provinces," and that, as respects these subject matters, "no greater dis-service could be done than to evade deliberate decision."
As respects the specific recommendation that the Dominion government should apply its mind to the proposition of a mutual trade treaty for forest products and fish, it may be pointed out that reciprocal trade treaties in natural products are, and have been for many years, a part of Liberal trade policy. The attempt of a great Nova Scotian in 1911 to remedy the situation by a reciprocity treaty did not, in our opinion, meet with the support it should have from the maritimes. We believe that to the defeat of the proposed reciprocal trade agreement, more than to all other factors combined, may be traced the causes of existing economic depression in the maritime provinces. Our policy remains one of seeking to advance, as opportunity affords, mutual trade agreement in natural products.
A declaration of our readiness and our willingness to make an arrangement with the United States whenever they are ready to meet us on fair terms, will be found in the following clause which, at the instance of Mr. Fielding, the then Minister of Finance, was inserted in 1923 in our tariff laws:
The Governor in Council may authorize any minister of the crown to enter into negotiations with any authorized representative of the government of the United States with a view to the making of a commercial agreement between the two countries on terms that may be deemed mutually beneficial. Any agreement so made shall be subject to the approval of the parliament of Canada.
This is a general indication of our willingness to make a commercial treaty with our neighbours. If favourably entertained, some time would have to elapse before an agreement could be made and brought into effect. It would require action by the United States congress as well as by the Canadian parliament. Under the present law of the United States there is a privilege granted to the President of the United States to make certain reductions of duties if he likes to do so.

, Maritime Claims
He may do that without waiting for congress As an intimation to the president that if he is prepared to exercise the power which congress has given to him by way of reduction, we are prepared to meet him on similar terms. Mr. Fielding proposed in 1923, the insertion of the following clause in our tariff law, which clause is in effect to-day:
If the President of the United States, under authority of the United States' Tariff Act of 1922, determines to reduce by fifty per cent the duties imposed by such act on the following articles, that is to say:
Cattle, wheat, wheat flour, oats, barley, potatoes, onions, turnips, hay, fish, as enumerated in paragraphs 717, 718, 719, and 720 of the said Tariff Act of 1920. the Governor in Council may, by order in council, make such reductions of duties on similar articles imported into Canada from the United States as may be deemed reasonable by way of compensation for such reductions of duties on Canadian products imported into the United States.
The appointment of a minister to Washington is a step which it is believed will be helpful, as opportunity offers, in the negotiation with our neighbours of trade treaties of mutual interest and advantage.
With regard to the question of coking plants, the commission's recommendation that immediate practical steps be taken, has been accepted and a bill will be introduced at the present session of parliament respecting the establishment of coking plants at convenient centres in Canada under government assistance, along lines approved by the special committee of the House of Commons, which dealt with the fuel question last year.
The recommendation of the commission that the Tariff Advisory Board should be asked to give immediate consideration to the customs tariff in its relation to coal, anthracite and coke has been met. The matter is now before the Tariff Advisory Board. It would appear desirable at this point to recall that at the session of 1925, as a means of assisting coal production in the maritimes, the customs duty on slack coal was raised from 13 cents to 50 cents. The question of protection on the primary products of iron and steel was, as stated in the report, under the consideration of the Tariff Advisory Board at the time of the commission's investigation. Owing to the existing uncertainty of conditions surrounding the iron and steel industry in the maritimes, the government does not feel in a position to make at present any pronouncement with respect to the commission's recommendation of a renewal of the system of granting bounties with respect to steel when Canadian coal is used in its manufacture.
32649-85J
The government is prepared to accept the recommendations of the commission concerning the establishment of harbour commissions for the harbours of Halifax and St. John and bills with reference thereto will be introduced at the present session.
In connection with port development and the development of trade through Canadian ports, it might here be mentioned that within the past year increased loading accommodation has been provided for the elevator at Halifax; also that the bill "respecting the Canadian National Steamships and to provide for the establishment of a West Indies service," at present before parliament, will have an important bearing upon port development and trade of the maritime provinces. Mention should also be made of the enactment of 1923 whereby a discount of 10 per cent of the existing customs duty in addition to the preference rate is allowed on goods entitled to the benefit of the British preference when shipped via Canadian ports, and of the enactment of last year which restricts the advantages to be derived from the British preference to commodities entering Canada via Canadian ports.
In regard to harbour facilities in Prince Edward Island, it should be stated that the Department of Public Works had begun a survey of the harbours of Charlottetown, Georgetown and Summerside, particularly as to wharfage and storage accommodation, prior to the date on which the commission presented its report. In this particular the commission's recommendation has, therefore, already been acted upon in part. The survey will be continued, in as far as may be necessary fully to comply with the commission's recommendation.
I come now to the important subject of transportation and freight rates and to the far-reaching recommendations of the commission "that an immediate reduction of 20 per cent be made on all rates charged on traffic which both originates and terminates at stations in the Atlantic division of the Canadian National Railways-including export and import traffic by sea from and to that division- and that the same reduction be also applied to the Atlantic division proportion of the through rates on all traffic which originates at stations on the Atlantic division-excluding import traffic by sea-and is destined to points outside the Atlantic division."
Subject to certain modifications, which may appear to be necessary respecting international rates and through import rates by sea, a bill will be introduced at the present session giving effect to this recommendation.
Maritime Claims ,

With respect to the recommendation "that the railway -board should be vested with somewhat fuller supervisory powers," it is felt that, if accepted, this recommendation would bring about a radical change in the fundamental powers of the railway commission affecting the whole of Canada. It has no immediate bearing on the rights of the maritime provinces any more than of other parts of Canada and is of such a far reaching character as to demand more mature consideration than has been possible up to this time.
There is now before the railway commission the whole matter of flat percentage increases, known as horizontal increases, which the commission recommends should be taken into fresh consideration by the railway commission.
A survey of what is required with respect to the needed railway service improvements on Prince Edward Island will, as recommended, bo made immediately, in order that future action may be intelligently determined.
The whole matter of ferry boat service between the island and the mainland is now under investigation, as recommended by the commission.
This brings me to the last of the recommendations, which in the order of the report are the first there mentioned, namely, those respecting money grants to the provinces. The government is prepared to accept the recommendation of the commission to give immediate consideration to a revision or readjustment of the financial arrangements as between the Dominion and the maritime provinces. In this connection attention is invited to what is said by the commissioners with respect to the increase and form of Dominion aid. The statement in reference thereto immediately precedes their recommendation, and is as follows:
The terms of readjustment are obviously a matter for detailed determination and assessment, so that the actual amount-as well as the reasons and purposes attaching to it, can be recognized by the rest of Canada as fair and equitable. It is not possible, therefore to make a final recommendation as to the increase and form of Dominion aid which is required to satisfy the just claims of the maritime situation.
To gain recognition by the rest of Canada as to the fairness and equity of any revision or readjustment of the financial arrangements as between the Dominion and the maritime provinces, it would appear that the proposed revision or readjustment should be made a subject of consideration in the first instance by a conference at whidh all of the provinces of Canada as well as the Dominion would be represented. This indeed is directly implied by the language of the commissioners and by the reference which this portion of the report makes to "the revision of 1907" to "general

grounds applicable to all other provinces as well as to .the maritimes," to "the contention of the maritime provinces that they have been, and are being, dealt with differently from the western provinces," and to the "territorial limitations" of the maritime provinces and their claim that the "extra-provincial lands which came into the possession of the Dominion government at the date of confederation were acquired by purchase and have been developed and given value at the expense of the Dominion."
In order that there may be no delay in effecting consideration by a Dominion-provincial conference of a revision or readjustment of the fianancial arrangements as between the Dominion and the maritime provinces, the government has decided to place this matter on the agenda of the Dominion-provincial conference to be held, as already announced, during the course of the present year. In that conference the Dominion will be in a position which it has not thus far enjoyed, to present its views on the general question of the financial relations between the Dominion and the provinces, as well as on the question of a detailed determination and assessment of the special claims of the maritime provinces, and every province will have an equal opportunity of stating its position.
As already indicated, we believe with the commissioners, that the time is opportune for a readjustment of the financial arrangements between the Dominion and the maritime provinces, but it would not make for an harmonious and lasting settlement of the financial issue, a settlement based on due regard for the needs and interests of all the provinces and of the Dominion itself, to attempt to set a final figure now, before the views of the other provinces and the position of the Dominion have been set forth, and a settlement reached which public opinion will be prepared to accept. For the same reason it is not possible, in advance of the deliberations of the conference and of the detailed determination and assessment which the report recognizes is necessary, to accept the view for which no detailed grounds are advanced, that certain sums set forth in the report should be regarded as "the minimum addition that the three maritime provinces should have in any such revision." The final revision can only be made in accordance with the merits of the case.
As evidence of the desire of the government to go just as far as may be possible, in relieving any feeling of suspense pending a final revision and in order to enable the maritime provinces, in what the commission

Ruled of the House
describes as "their present state of grave necessity" to deal with any special industrial or financial situation which, in the view of their governments may require public assistance, we are prepared, without prejudice as to the amount to be arrived at as a final solution, to recommend to parliament at the present session the making of special grants to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island of $875,000, $600,000 and $125,000 respectively, these amounts being the sums recommended by the royal commission as immediate lump sum payments.
In concluding this statement, may I 6ay that the government hopes that, by accepting as we have, the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Maritime Claims, virtually in their entirety, parliament and the country will recognize in the attitude of the government a wish to remove this great question as largely as possible from the arena of sectional discord and party strife, and a desire to give to our Dominion in the sixtieth anniversary of its founding, a renewed expression of the spirit which animated the fathers of confederation in their efforts to construct out of British North America a federal union under a system of government devised "to protect the diversified interests of the several provinces and secure efficiency, harmony and permanency in the working of the union."



BRITISH COLUMBIA HALIBUT FISHERY OBJECTION TO LICENSES FOB JAPANESE FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria) :: I wish to call the attention of the House to an item appearing in the Vancouver Province of last Sunday, which reads:
White Halibut Men Oppose, Granting of Licenses to J apanese
White halibut fishing men are alarmed over the report that large numbers of Japanese, formerly engaged in salmon fishing and now barred by the reducing quota under federal regulations, are turning to the halibut banks.
Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries heard anything of this matter? If so, I should like to ask if the government has jurisdiction in these ex-territorial waters where halibut are caught, and if [DOT]any licenses are issued to halibut fishers?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: I am not in a position to give a definite answer to the question. I have not seen the report to which my hon. friend refers. I would be inclined to state just now that I do not think we have any
authority beyond the limits. At all events, I will make inquiry in regard to it and will inform my hon. friend at the next sitting of the House.



RULES OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move that the House
revert to motions in order to consider the report of the committee on rules.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: I move that the House resolve itself into committee of the whole immediately, to consider the report of the committee appointed to revise the rules of the House of Commons, which report was presented to the House on Tuesday, 15th March last.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the report, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Amended rule No 1.-Procedure in unprovided cases.


[Stage Direction]
Rule agreed to.
Amended rule No. 2-House to meet at 3 p.m.
Mr. SPENCER:: The hon. member for
Macleod (Mr. Coote) wished to speak on this rule; he has left the chamber. Perhaps the committee could proceed with the other rules and take this up later.


The CHAIRMAN:: All right.
Stands.
New rule to be added after rule 3-Adjournment at 11 o'clock p.m.


Hewitt Bostock: Following the appointment of this special committee we held sittings on every day set apart for meetings. The meetings were well attended by every member of the committee, which represented fully the three groups in the House. There was harmony and unanimity in the making and adoption of the report.


Mr. IRVINE:: I think it is a rule in
practice in this House that on Wednesday at six o'clock the Speaker leaves the chair, and any matter then under discussion virtually drops out, or goes to the bottom of the list on the order paper. I wonder whether this rule that is now under consideration would apply to the Wednesday afternoon discussion as it does to discussion on other days closing at eleven o'clock.
Ruled of the House


Hewitt Bostock: This question was considered by the committee, and it was decided that the same rule should apply in the future as in the past. The matter under discussion at six o'clock on Wednesday goes to the bottom of the list of public bills on the order paper, but these items under public bills have, under our amended rules, a chance to be debated again in the House on Tuesday and Friday evenings during the hour devoted to private bills, because when private bills are disposed of the remainder of the hour is taken up with the public bills. Sometimes, however, they lie in abeyance during the whole session. I hope my explanation is clear.


John Frederick Johnston: We will revert to
amended rule 2.
Amended rule No. 2-House to meet at 3 p.m.


Mr. OOOTE:: I would like to make a remark or two in regard to this rule. I think the House should seriously consider starting its business, at an earlier hour than three o'clock in the afternoon. Ottawa has been well named, I think, the land of afternoon. We should start our work in the morning, in my opinion, but if we cannot do that, surely we might start at two o'clock. As it is, we turn night into day, and those who can Steep in the morning turn day into night. I am not one of those happy individuals who can sleep in the daytime. If I am kept in this House until eleven or twelve at night and get to bed around midnight or one o'clock in the morning, I wake up at any usual time in the morning, and I do not get enough sleep, and then I am accused by some members of getting very cranky before the session is over. I think many other members are in the same position. I am sure it would be better for the House, better for the individual members and better for the business of the country, if we started our work at a reasonable hour in the day and quit at a reasonable hour at night. I do not want to delay the committee or get out of order, Mr. Chairman, but if we agree that the House is not to start until three in the afternoon, it may be impossible to get the House to consent to closing earlier than we do now.
I want to draw the committee's attention to the hours that we must keep here if we do not start our work until three in the afternoon. First of all, there is the effect on the members themselves, and the ministers of the crown and the leader of the opposition are in the worst position. They should be here on most occasions, in fact, nearly all the time the House is in session, and in addition, ministers must attend coun-
[Mr. Irvine.1
cil meetings and look after the work of their departments. I do not see how they can be mentally in a fit condition to attend to all these duties if they are compelled to sit here until midnight.


Mr. POWER:: They were not even before
they became ministers.


George Gibson Coote: The ordinary member-I am going now by my own experience-is here as a rule from about nine in the morning until nearly midnight for at least four days in the week. It is true that we have Wednesday night off, but I think that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. There is no other class of people that I know of that works four nights a week as well as in the daytime, and I am firmly convinced that if we would adopt reasonable rules to expedite the business of the House and of the committees, we could get along without sitting until eleven at night, but to bring it about we should have to start a little earlier in the day.
If I may go back again to the members of the House, we are here from about nine in the morning until midnight four days in the week, and the other day we are here from nine until six or seven. That leaves us only two nights a week. I think even members of the House of Commons should have a little time for play, and the only time they can get is in the evening, and if they take those two evenings for recreation there is no other evening left in which they can go to bed early. Besides there are lots of people around this House in addition to the members. We have Hansard reporters and reporters in the press gallery, whose work is not done when the House adjourns. They are here for about two hours after the House closes, and if a member happens to speak at eleven or eleven-thirty-
Mr. LAPOINTE; Does my hon. friend know that we are going to adjourn at eleven in the future under another rule?


George Gibson Coote: Even supposing we adjourn
at eleven, if the member remains to correct his remarks in Hansard, he is going to be here till twelve or twelve-thirty.


Charles Marcil: Under the new rules a
member will not be allowed to speak for so long, so they will have less work to do in correcting proofs.


George Gibson Coote: A few nights ago I was
speaking here for about five minutes, and I did not want to correct my remarks because it was after eleven. In my remarks I used the word "turbines," and it appeared in Hansard as "carbons." Anyone reading my re-

Rulei' oj the House
marks in Hansard will naturally wonder what I am talking about. I do not blame the Hansard reporters because very often this House is so noisy that they cannot hear what is being said.
I would like the committee seriously to consider the question of starting our business earlier in the day and quitting earlier in the evening. As far as I have been able to find out, Great Britain and Canada are the only two countries in the world where night sittings are indulged in by parliament to any extent. At Washington, congress does its business, a business probably three or four times as great as ours, without any night sittings. Nearly all the parliaments in the world do without night sittings except Canada and Great Britain.
May I draw the attention of the House to this fact? Away back in 1907 a resolution was introduced into this House by the then member for South Renfrew asking that the House adjourn at ten-thirty in the evening. We shall have made very little progress in twenty years if we are now simply proposing to adopt a rule to adjourn at eleven o'clock. What I would suggest to the House is this: We might at least sit at two o'clock in the afternoon, take recess at six o'clock, and adjourn at ten. If there is objection to that, could we not at least have two other nights a week off? On Monday and Friday nights we cannot do any very important business in the House because so many members from Ontario and Quebec wish to go home for the week-end, but the members from the west and from the east have to stay here and all they can do is to transact routine business. I say that if the members from Ontario and Quebec are privileged to take off Monday and Friday nights and go home over the week-end, why should not the members from other parts of Canada have the same privilege? Let us do without Monday night and Friday night.
Now a word on behalf of members who come from a distance and bring their families with them. A man's family life should not be destroyed because he accepts the position of member of parliament. If a member does bring his family to Ottawa-and I speak now from experience-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: I do not understand the
applause. I must admit that I am Scotch. Sometimes I bring my family to Ottawa, but my family complain that I spend almost all my time in the House of Commons and they do not see me in the evening.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I do not
care how much amusement the committee get out of this if I can only persuade them to do their business within reasonable hours. All joking aside-


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the joke?


George Gibson Coote: I do not know. If a member takes his duties seriously, and if he has as much correspondence and as many departmental calls to attend to as have some of the members from western Canada-their constituents including many homesteaders, people who want leases, and others who desire their member to do something or other for them- he has to be here from nine o'clock in the morning until midnight. I repeat, I do not see where the joke is when I say that even if a man brings his family to Ottawa they will not see very much of him unless they come and sit in the galleries. We have committees almost every morning of the week, we have our correspondence to attend to, and we have our duties in this chamber. It means, as I say, that a man is tied down here from nine o'clock in the morning until midnight. Is it any wonder that in the last parliament we lost so many of our members? I think it is too severe a strain physically on members to carry on even during the hours that are proposed under the new rules, which I must admit are an improvement on the present rules. In my judgment if this House of Commons cannot devise rules for the transaction of the country's business without sitting here until eleven o'clock at night four nights a week it is certainly a reflection upon our intelligence.


Francis Wellington Hay: Mir. Chairman, I differ just a
little with my hon. friend from Macleod. I get ample sleep at home during the summer and I thought that coming down to Ottawa I could perhaps do without as much sleep as I had been accustomed to. I find I can. I have reached the conclusion that there are too many days and too few nights in our time-table. If we can readjust ourselves in some way I am quite willing that we should have at our disposal more nights and fewer days. But what affects some of my colleagues from the western provinces most seriously seems to be the disturbance of their family arrangements. Thus far my experience is that I really see more of my family here than I do at home. But perhajps so far as the major membership of the House is concerned it would be agreeable to them if some of us at this end were not so frequent in our attendance and so keenly interested in public af-
Rules' oj the House

fairs! In all seriousness, would it not be possible for us to agree to attend punctually at the hour of opening and devote our time to our parliamentary duties during the full duration of each day's sittings. I do not refer so much to attendance in this chamber, and being a new member I am not offering any advice, but I have noticed that in our committees we are punctual for the opening meetings, although afterwards we are often fifteen to twenty minutes late. Not only in this chamber but in the various committees it is most difficult to carry on our work because apparently we give too much attention to something that ought not to concern us and too little attention to the subject matter in hand. I do not know that the acoustics of this chamber can be improved to any very great extent, but certainly from either end it is most difficult to hear discussion that may be proceeding beyond the centre and nearer the chair. I believe that if we would give a little more serious thought to the business of the House we might accomplish much more within the present hours. Then we would have ample time for play and when the weather is fine we would be able to enjoy the beauties of Ottawa, for in the summertime I am told it is a very pretty place. I am not so busy at home during the summer season and with the kindly cooperation and hospitable generosity of local members and the ministers who desire to entertain those of us who are living here on the European plan and not on a flat rate, perhaps we could spend some part of the summer very profitably.


Charles Gavan Power: May I draw the attention
of the committee to the fact that during the last nine years that I have been a member of this House no budget debate has been terminated before eleven o'clock at night. A great deal more progress is always made after that hour than at any other period of the day.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Charles Gavan Power: I am calling the attention
of members to that fact. It may be that some of us are not fully awake and in our best state of mind until after eleven o'clock. It seems to me that we will be prolonging the length of the session if we lay down any such hard and fast rule as that now under discussion. I am very much opposed to it and do not think that it should be adopted. If it does pass, and it is desired to have a fixed hour of adjournment, let us sit straight through from three o'clock in the afternoon until eleven o'clock at night, as is, I understand, the custom in Great Britain. We could very easily arrange

that between six and eight o'clock only noncontentious measures would be brought up and that no votes would be taken either in committee or in the House during that period. It would be a comparatively easy matter to keep a quorum and we could get through a great deal of work. However, I put that forward only as an alternative suggestion in case the House decide to give up the good old practice of sitting as late as we can as long as we get our business done.


Alexander McKay Edwards: What rule
are we on?


John Frederick Johnston: Rule 2. The third
rule is carried.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: That is putting the cart before the horse.


John Frederick Johnston: Rule 2 was allowed to stand.
Rule 2 agreed to.


John Wesley Edwards: If the third rule is carried I cannot do anything more than enter my protest. I heartily agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I am in entire agreement, as I am sure other member's are, with the proposal that it would be advisable for this House to rise every evening not later than eleven o'clock. I do not think there is any difference of opinion as to that, but I do question very strongly the advisability of laying down a hard and fast rule to effect it. I believe it would take away, to a certain extent at least the liberties of the members and I believe it would not conduce to expediting business, for in many cases members would continue to talk on the principle, " Oh, well at eleven o'clock the sitting will be through anyway."


Charles Marcil: We are to have a rule
governing the length of speeches.


John Wesley Edwards: There are a sufficient number of members who would be prepared to talk forty minutes each and thus keep a debate going interminably. I do not think that a hard and fast rule for the adjournment of the House at eleven o'clock would make for despatch. Hon. members would simply keep an eye on the clock, knowing that at eleven o'clock the House would automatically adjourn, and they would just talk to kill time. That would not be in the interests of the country. The rule is absolutely unwise, aijd it would be an infringement of the liberties of members. In my judgment it is not in the best interest of Canada to adopt such a rule. Surely we can leave the adjournment of the House to two factors]

Rules' oj the House
first,, the general disposition of members to close at a reasonable hour. We might put some dependence on that disposition. As has been suggested, in the budget debate, which usually comes on early in the session, or in the debate on the address, no harm would be done if the sitting now and then exceeded eleven o'clock. A member might be able to conclude his remarks if he'were allowed to speak for half an hour or so after eleven o'clock, but with a rule in force for adjournment at eleven he would have to wait until the next day. I do not agree with the statement of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), which is very often repeated in the press, as to time being wasted in this House. I admit that a certain amount of time is unavoidably lost in parliament, but it has often struck me that newspaper editors in criticising the members of the House of Commons for waste of time might very well look over their own papers and see how much space is wasted by Jiggs pictures and things of that sort. Having regard to the extent of this country, some members representing constituencies which are larger than some independent countries in Europe, does this parliament waste any more time^indeed, in view of the business to be done, does it wraste as much time

as the township council, the city council, the county council and the provincial legislatures? My own honest opinion is that we do not waste any more time in proportion to the extent of our business than they do; and we pay closer and better attention to the affairs of the country than is generally the case in other legislative bodies. Undoubtedly a certain amount of time is wasted; that has always been true and it will continue to be so. But time is wasted at meetings of boards of trade and other bodies as well. I have no hesitation in saying that, if we are tied down to a hard and fast rule to adjourn at eleven o'clock every night, we shall waste far more time than we should if we were allowed some latitude and some room for the exercise of judgment and common sense on both sides; for I am sure it is the general desire of members throughout the House to stop at a reasonable time.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no doubt that in any change of this kind there are arguments pro and con. There is much in what my hon. friend from Frontenac-Addington and my hon. friend from Quebec South have said, to the effect that a rule for adjournment at eleven o'clock might not help to expedite the business of the House. I trust, however, that other rules which we shall adopt will compensate for whatever disadvantages might
result from this one. This rule is rather in the interests of common sense and of the health of members. I agree to a large extent with what my hon. friend from Macleod has said, and I am glad he has given a description of the work of a member of parliament. So many people in the country think that we all come here for a holiday, but a member's task is tedious. It might very well be called a drudgery; it is work that impairs the health and, as the hon. gentleman has said, makes family life impossible. I do not however quite agree with the hon. gentleman in his suggestion that we should begin at two o'clock in the afternoon. This has been tried on Wednesdays for some time but it has not worked very well. And as a matter of fact, although it stood as a rule it has never been observed.


Mr. STEVENS:: It has always been observed except in the last two years.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, I think for a longer time than that. Let me take my own case by way of illustration, unpleasant as it is for one to be personal. We work from nine to ten in the morning and we have to look after the affairs of the departments, receiving delegations, carrying on the business of council, and so forth. As has been said, ministers are expected to be in their seats and in fact we try to do so. I do not see therefore how we could very well be expected to come to the House at two o'clock every day. I may say that the meetings of this very committee, in which I was interested, I found it simply impossible to attend. I certainly think that three o'clock in the afternoon is early enough for the opening of the House. An hon. member has made a remark about Friday and Monday evenings, saying that we practically lose these sittings because of the absence of many Ontario and Quebec members. That is not my experience. My experience is that we have done much more work on Friday and Monday evenings than we do on other days. The absence of the members referred to does not reflect itself in any curtailment of business.


Mr. HEAPS:: That is a compliment to the other provinces.


Ernest Lapointe: I will say it is a compliment to my hon. friend, who is very diligent in his attendance, as well as to all who remain here. As I said, these rules have been carefully considered, and while there may be objections to some of them, they are on the whole, I think, such as will lead to a better parliamentary life.
Rules' of the House


Mr. BENNETT:: I have listened with
much interest to the observations of my hon. friend from Macleod, of the Minister of Justice, and of the hon, member for Frontenac-Addington with respect to the opening of the House at three o'clock. In England it used to be the custom to open at four o'clock, but looking up the rule recently I found that the House there meets at two forty-five. Might we not compromise in this House and meet at that hour?


Hugh Guthrie: Why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the reason that the fifteen minutes between two forty-five and three o'clock would give us time to dispose of a good deal of routine business of the House, so that at three o'clock we might be able to direct our attention to the regular program. There is only one objection to this suggestion and that is the possibility of its interfering with ministers in council in the discharge of their duties. That is the only difficulty I can see. In this country the cabinet meets practically every day during the session usually at two o'clock, and whether forty-five minutes would be sufficient time for the disposal of the business on hand it is difficdlt for one who occupied the position for so short a time, and who was not in office during the session, to determine. It does ocour to me however that we might effect a compromise by meeting at two-forty five.
With respect to the hour of closing, may I point out to my -hon. friends from Quebec South and Frontenac-Addington that the House always has control of its own proceedings, and it would be only necessary at any ' time for the Prime Minister to give notice that on such a date the rule for eleven o'clock closing would be suspended. The Prime Minister to-day, for instance, gives notice that on and after a given date we shall sit in the mornings. If this rule now proposed were adopted, its operation oould be eliminated at any time upon notice being given. In the main I am prepared to accept the findings of the committee, but in view of the remarks that have been made I may point out that in England they adjourn at eleven-thirty. It is fixed ' by rule in England, notwithstanding what my hon. friend says, that at eleven-thirty, in some circumstances, and at five o'clock and eleven o'clock in other cases the House adjourns. They also have a special rule in their procedure whereby it is provided that a minister may give notice, and when the House signifies its acceptance of his motion the eleven o'clock or eleven-thirty or five o'clock closing rule does not prevail. It seems to me that that would meet our difficulty;

if we wanted to sit until midnight it would only be necessary for the Prime Minister or the minister in charge of the measure under consideration to give notice the day before that the next day the rule in respect of the eleven o'clock closing would not apply, until the question under consideration was finished. For instance, the whole budget debate might be treated in that way, which would overcome the difficulty mentioned. In the main I am glad to support these recommendations.


George Halsey Perley: I consider that
we had very satisfactory meetings of this committee; our object all the way through was to devise changes in the rules upon which we could all agree, and in our report we were unanimous. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) took different views; one wanted to sit later and the other to adjourn earlier, but this report is a compromise. I came into this House a great many years ago and from my very first session I felt that we should amend the rules in order to close earlier in the evening and to have shorter speeches; in that way we would be kept here a shorter time and the business of the House would be done more quickly. I am very glad to have been a member of this committee and to have had a part in drawing up these recommendations, which I think will help very much in expediting business and in allowing us to get home at an earlier hour than has been the case in the past. It seems to me that wise men would hardly agree that they should sit here until four or five o'clock in the morning, as has been done many times in my experience, and I hope that that practice will be stopped. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has explained about the hour of closing; that matter is entirely in the hands of the House and by giving notice the rule can be suspended. Of course, when closure is brought in we have not suggested stopping at an earlier hour than that provided in the old rules, which is two o'clock in the morning. It may be as some hon. members have said, that this will lead to greater time being taken in discussing these matters, and in such case I suppose we will have closure often; so far as I am concerned I see no reason why that should not be. I hope the House will adopt these rules as they have been unanimously drawn up by the committee.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: I agree with
many hon. members who have spoken that shortening the hours we spend in this House

Rules! of the House
would be a proper procedure. There is no reason why this House should sit after eleven o'clock; if there is some matter of great public importance under discussion, by unanimous consent we could arrange to sit later. Years ago we used to consider that unless we kept our stores, warehouses and other places of business open from early in the morning until eight or nine o'clock at night we could not get along, but during the war, when help was scarce, our ideas changed. To-day we arc opening at eight o'clock and closing at five o'clock, and our business is just as great as ft was before. It may be, as one hon. member has said, that we pu^h through a lot of business after eleven o'clock at night; that may be all right for the party in power if they can catch the opposition asleep but it is not the best thing for the country and we should consider the people. It is not often that I disagree with the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington	(Mr. Edwards) and
agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), but in this case I agree with him absolutely. In this House business administration should apply as in any other big business. We drift along in a lackadaisical way, doing nothing and discussing radical resolutions which should never be introduced here. In revising the rules of the House I would suggest that something be done to eliminate matters of that kind altogether. I am not referring to any hon. member in particular, but I think we all waste time, with the exception of myself, and it is a crime to lose the time and waste the money of the country sitting here week after week when we should not be here at all.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I would just assure the hon. member that I will give him every support if he initiates a strike in this House foT an eight hour day.


Charles Marcil: I should like to support
what has already been said by the other members of the committee. These rules are in many cases compromises; we would have shortened the work of parliament still more had we been able to agree, but in that way we did bring in an unanimous report. We must not only consider to-day's sitting; a late sitting to-d'ay means that the committee to-morrow morning will not meet. The committee on privileges and elections met three times last week and each time lacked1 a quorum. I have had the honour of 'sitting in this House for twenty-nine consecutive sessions, and I have been a member of three committees appointed to revise the rules; I filled the position of Deputy Speaker for four years and of Speaker
for three years, and I say without fear of contradiction that with three parties now in the House we should accept these recommendations. We have considered the rules in the British House, where the so-called midnight rule applies, and I am sure that in our common sense and anxiety to give the country the best we have and with our desire to get through our work as expeditiously as possible and in as businesslike a way as possible, the majority of this House will be in favour of the adoption Of these changes. My experience in the old days was that we never settled any important question before five or six o'clock in the morning, twenty-five or even fifteen years ago all the important divisions were taken at about that hour. Then closure was brought in; that was a blessing in disguise and helped the government of the day, but it was also a great help to the opposition. We have had debates in this House which lasted for a fortnight, beginning at three o'clock Monday afternoon and ending at midnight Saturday night. Men were so exhausted that they lay down here on cots; some of them brought pillows and we were a laughing stock; we were nick-named "sleeping beauties", and people came to gaze upon the results of our foolishness. I sincerely hope this report will be adopted; the eleven o'clock closing rule can always be suspended, but when it is adhered to we will feel fit to do something the next day, and it must be remembered that all the important work of a member of parliament is not done in this chamber. We all belong to committees, to which important measures are referred, and I am sorry to say that as it is many members do not attend the meetings of those committees as regularly as they might. When we have late sessions the committees meeting the next morning are not attended, and as a consequence important matters are neglected and the work is not satisfactory. As I have said, the committee has brought in a compromise report in the best interests of all parties, and I hope it will be supported by the House. These rules will come into effect next session, and if we find that we have made a mistake we can then correct any rule we so desire. For the present I think the House should do this committee the compliment of adopting the report.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, the surest
evidence that late sittings have not been injurious to the health of the members is the eloquence and mental ability of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and who has been a member of this House for twenty-nine years. If he has been able to remain through these long sittings for twenty-nine
Rules1 oj the House

years, and then deliver the speech he made this afternoon, I have no doubt that if our electors permit us to do so we are capaJble of doing the same thing. Every reason urged by the Minister of Justice in refusing the request of the hon. member for Maeleod that we do not sit Friday night applies with equal force to sitting after eleven o'clock on any night. He stated that more work was done on Friday night than at any other time. Possibly the implication was because some members were [DOT] away. The same thing applies to not sitting beyond eleven o'clock at night. I do not wish to insist on this but I think experience will show that the government, no matter which party may be in power, will suffer. It will be comparatively easy to obstruct, comparatively easy to keep the House sitting until eleven o'clock at night. I know it would be my best wish under such a rule to be sitting on the opposition benches.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I just want to say a word on this matter. I agree with all those who have spoken that it is our duty to facilitate the work of parliament. I also agree with the hon. member who has just sat down that this rule will not accomplish that result; there is no question of that at all in my mind. I think the government are making a serious mistake. After all it is the duty of a government to govern, and if they are going to govern they must have the power to do so. This rule will put the government in the hands of the House. Talk can be maintained every night until eleven o'clock, and the government will find that they are seriously handicapped in carrying on the affairs of the country. The members of the government may be hard worked, but I can assure them that there are lots of other people who would be glad to take their places. The same thing is true of members of parliament. Every time they go home they can find a dozen people who would gladly relieve them of their duties. But I do not think anybody can say he is seriously overworked in the House of Commons when he only puts in three hours in the afternoon and three hours at night. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Power) that anybody who has watched the business of this parlimaent will find that the most effective work is done after eleven o'clock. Many of us have had to sit here and listen to speeches that sometimes occupy two, three and four hours, many of them repeated session after session, and two or three times a session. I am not one of those who take up many hours of the time of this House, it is very seldom that I make a speech of even twenty or thirty minutes duration. I want to say to 
the government that they are not going to get the business of the session done more quickly by adopting an arbitrary rule to quit at eleven o'clock at night. We are not children. Most of us are supposed to have reached the age of maturity and common sense. The necessity for adjourning at eleven o'clock at night, or earlier, is in everybody's mind, but when you make an arbitrary rule to adjourn at that hour the government will find night after night that when they take up their measures, especially estimates, they will not get the work done as quickly as they otherwise would.


Mr. EDW  ARDS@Frontenac: I have just one other remark to make and I may as well make it now before the forty-minute rule comes into operation. It has been mentioned that if the eleven o'clock rule proves irksome it may be suspended. That is very true, but the responsibility for carrying on the work of the House does not rest upon this side, the responsibility is upon the government. I suppose that if in the judgment of the government it was deemed advisable to suspend the rule the motion for suspension would come from them, and they might continue sitting until twelve o'clock midnight, or one or two o'clock in the morning. I do not imagine a motion from this side of 'the House that the rule be suspended in order that we might continue after eleven o'clock would meet with approval; I would not expect it to. At anv rate I say the responsibility rests upon the government for any such motion as that. But I think I am right in making the assertion that there is a general impression throughout the country that most of our estimates go through in the last few days of the session-that millions and tens of millions of dollars of estimates go through at that time. Now it might be particularly in the interests of the government to try to put those estimates through by continuing after eleven o'clock at night in the hope that members would get tired and say "Oh, well, let them go through, I am going home." What I want to say in that regard is that if there is any instance where that rule should be vigorously followed it is when the estimates are going through and the money of the country is being voted. It would be open to the government to suspend the rule if they thought it advisable in order to facilitate the passage of estimates in that way. It would certainly be in their interest to suspend that rule, and continue sitting until one or two o'clock, or perhaps three o'clock in the morning in order to rush things through. Suppose the government desire to prorogue on a certain date and they say: Both sides of the House

Ruled oj the House
desire to close on that date. Different matters are introduced. The government make an estimate of how much time it will take to get the business through but fresh matters crop up that reduce the margin of time allowed and in order to close by the date fixed the government give notice of motion to suspend the rules and so rush through estimates of hundreds of millions in the last few hours of the session. I want to enter my protest now before that happens, if it does happen. Because it would be better not to have any arbitrary rule at all than to have it suspended by the government when it is to their interests to do so in order to rush through estimates and other business at a time when people are tired and want to get away. I hope the government will not abuse the rule in this regard at all events.


Hewitt Bostock: As was stated by one hon. member the oommittee in agreeing upon eleven o'clock thought to strike a happy medium. Personally I was in favour of adjourning at ten-thirty; other members of the committee favoured eleven o'clock, and still others thought eleven-thirty o'clock should be the proper hour. Finally the committee agreed upon eleven o'clock as best harmonizing the diversity of view.
Let me say to hon. gentlemen on both sides that in Britain where they have to scrutinize perhaps the biggest budget in the world, where they have to administer the affairs not of one country but of an immense empire, the House begins to sit in the afternoon at four-thirty and adjourns, except on special occasions, at eleven-thirty in the evening. Now, I admit we have a new country and we have vast problems to settle, but I think that by reducing the length of the speeches delivered here we can efficiently administer Canada's affairs in a reasonable length of time.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) a moment ago mentioned the Wednesday sittings beginning at two o'clock in the afternoon. I remember when that rule was intro-difced. It is the progeny of my dear old friend, Right Hon. Mr. Fielding. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) said a moment ago that he had sat in parliament for twenty-nine consecutive sessions. May I be permitted to say that I have sat in the House of Commons for thirty-one consecutive sessions. I was a boy when I came here first and, thank Providence, I feel like a boy yet. Mr. Fielding introduced the two o'clock rule for Wednesday sittings but the first session after its introduction members began to realize that it was impossible to deal with
the business of the House even for only one day each week at two o'clock in the afternoon, and the rule has been a dead letter practically ever since. The motion to suspend this rule, which forced members to rush to the House of Commons from the club or from the hotel, in order to be in their seats on time was practically the first motion made every session. Now this rule was adopted in a moment of fervor to expedite the work of the House but it did not succeed. As to the duration of the session, I believe we shall have made immense progress by agreeing to reduce the length of speeches to forty minutes. Let me recall some of my own experiences. In the old days, before 1900, it was the fashion to deliver long orations and the best among our parliamentarians were in the habit of speaking for two or three hours. Tupper and even Laurier, but in a lesser degree, would deliver long speeches. Blake delivered very long speeches. His speech in the early eighties against the Canadian Pacific Railway contract I think lasted for five or six hours. That was accepted in those days. But in this respect there has been a change in England as well as in Canada. It would not surprise members of the House if I were to say that the great Gladstone would be out of place in the House of Commons now. Public affairs are now managed by the British parliament as if it were a board composed of business men, with the directors sitting at the table and the shareholders around them. On one occasion after the war, in 1920, I happened to be in the House of Commons, and the proceedings were most interesting to me. Asquith had 'been elected for one of the Scottish seats, Paisley I think it was. He was introduced on that day, and he gave notice of a motion to consider the state of Europe after the war. That was surely a big issue. The motion came up the following day by mutual agreement between Lloyd George and Asquith. Asquith spoke for thirty minutes on the state of Europe after the war, and Lloyd George followed and closed the debate in twenty-five minutes. Surely a member can say all he has to say in less than forty minutes. I was in favour of making the limit thirty minutes. The best English ever heard in this House was spoken under closure in twenty minute speeches. The speeches were to the point, couched in excellent language, went to the root of the question, and delivered, I may say, with warmth and eloquence for fear of the guillotine. I say to the House, let us be practical. We say that we model our rules upon the English pattern. In England they have reduced materially the length of speeches. They do their business,-
Rule)} of the House

yes, and they administer the affaiis of a great empire in rather short sessions of the House. Why should we be provincial in this matter? Let us imitate the great mother of parliaments; let us be broad-minded and businesslike. The country would thank us for it.
New rule to be added after rule 3-adjournment at 11 o'clock-agreed to.
Rule 5-to be transferred to rule 23 as section 1, agreed to.
Amended rule 10-Select standing committees.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: I observe that
there is a committee on industrial relations. Our present committee is called committee on industrial and international relations. I think we should retain the two words.


Hewitt Bostock: It is a mistake; the full name will be restored as it was formerly.


Mr. NEILL:: I must take exception to
this rule. I do not think it will achieve the purpose intended. I think the general idea is that, there is difficulty in getting a quorum together on the day on which these committees meet, and it is proposed to remedy that by reducing the size of the committees, but in many cases increasing the percentage of the quorum, which will make it even more difficult to get a quorum. To begin with, may I say that much of the difficulty in getting a quorum of committees together is due to the fact that it is the custom of hon. members living in the neighbourhood in Quebec and in nearby places in Ontario to go home for the week-ends; consequently we have no committee meetings on Friday or Saturday, and we might well have meetings on those days, and we have no committee meetings on Monday because the members have not got back, and the result is that on Tuesday morning we have seven or eight committees all asking for a quorum at eleven o'clock. That is the real trouble in getting a quorum together. Some 'hon. members are ashamed to advertise that fact. Look at the proposed changes in the number of members on the committees. In the case of the committee on miscellaneous private bills it is proposed to have fifty members, fifteen of whom shall constitute a quorum. The committee formerly was composed of sixty-five members, and ten would constitute a quorum. If my figuring is correct ten out of sixty-five would mean 15 per cent, and fifteen out of fifty would be 30 per cent. Do hon. members think it will be easier to get 30 per cent of the committee than it would be to get

15 per cent? The same idea is carried out all through the list of committees. The quorum for the committee on agriculture has been raised from 11 to 33 per cent. It would be comparatively easy to obtain a quorum of 11 per cent out of a membership of 105, but when you have to get 33 per cent of that committee together in order to have a quorum, it will be difficult. I say that these changes will not achieve thie object aimed at. I suggest that the remedy is to leave the committee as it was before and make the quorum smaller.
I should like to refer to another phase of the matter. On page 7 we have the statement that it has been so arranged that each member may belong to two committees, according to the number of committee men arranged under this section. That will not be satisfactory in working out the matter. It may be all very well for members who represent an exclusively industrial district, or perhaps those exclusively engaged in some kind of farming, such as the growing of wheat in Alberta, but there are other districts where they are engaged in a variety of employments and where some representation should be granted to them. For instance, in the district I represent we have a large agricultural population and I want to be on the agriculture committee. Marine and fisheries is an important thing in my district, and I want to be on that committee. Then again, on account of the large labour vote in my district, I want to be on the industrial relations committee. I am told I can be placed on two committees only. Which of the two will it be? Take fisheries as an illustration; that resolves itself around two features, the salmon fishery in British Columbia and the lobster fishery on the Atlantic coast. Am I to leave the interests of the salmon fisheries in my district to be decided by the gentleman from Nova Scotia, whose interest does not go beyond the lobster industry or vice versa? It is not fair or just.
Another point is that people say "Oh well, members do not come to committee meetings." We will find that they will come to the sittings of both committees on occasions when they are required. A man interested in the dairy industry will not attend a meeting of the agriculture committee when the committee is dealing with the transportation of beef cattle across the Atlantic, but he will be on hand when the matter in which he is interested is to be discussed. When the transportation of cattle across the Atlantic is under consideration he can go to other

Rules! of the House
committees. It is an advantage to have a large committee, because the men who are interested in the matter will turn up, and you will have less trouble in getting a quorum. But you have the greatest difficulty in getting them to turn up to discuss something in which they are not in the least interested, but * in which other members are very vitally interested. I would suggest that the remedy is, as I said before, to leave the committee as large as before, but to reduce the quorum, and if we could possibly get into the way of holding committee meetings on Friday and Monday, it would do away with a great deal of the trouble we have in getting a quorum.


Charles Marcil: This amendment was based on a recommendation made to us by Mr. Todd, who has been the Clerk of the Committees of this House for forty years. The . intention is to reduce the membership. These large committees, such as the railway committee, with 135 members, are unworkable. The more members you have on a committee, the less work they do, and our object here is to distribute the work among all members of parliament so that each member will not have more than two committees at the outside to attend, and perhaps only one. What happens in practice is that two or three committees of which you are a member will be sitting at the same hour in the morning, and it is impossible in such a case for members to give their undivided attention to the work before them. We therefore invited Mlr. Todd, with his forty years experience as Clerk of Committees, to prepare for us what he thought would be a workable system, and this is the result. I think it should be tried before being changed.


George Halsey Perley: I would say to
my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi that all the members of the House have the same kind of difficulty that he suggests. We are all of us interested in all the committees at times, but we cannot all be members of all the committees, and I would remind him that as a matter of custom and etiquette a member can always go to a committee of which he is not actually a member and listen to the proceedings. As a matter of fact, even though he be not a member of the committee he is attending, I have never known a member to be refused a chance to speak on a subject if he wished to do so. He has not the actual right to speak in a committee of which he is not a member, but I have never known permission to be refused.


Alan Webster Neill: My hon. friend is speaking from his experience, and I am speaking from
mine. I have seen permission refused several times in the few years' experience I have had in this House. I can give him a case in point. It occurred in the railway committee. I was not a member of that committee, and I proposed to make some remarks in it, and I was called to order. The point of order was raised whether I was entitled to make any remarks, and I know of another occasion when the same rule was applied, and properly applied, to another member. So far as having the right to go in and look on is concerned, we can affl do that in a police court, or in the Supreme court, but that does not give us much say in what is being done there. The man who butts in on some particular phase of an inquiry that is being held by a committee of which he is not a member gets very small attention. He is not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, or to vote, and he is accepted as being simply an onlooker. That is all the good it does him. My hon. friend points to what has always been the custom; but we are living in an age of progress. There are five parties in the House,, now, and some consideration should be given to that.


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend's experience has been different from my own. It seems to me the exception proves that the practice is all right. Each committee must have full control over its own deliberations, and if I go into a committee of which I am not a member, and for any reason that committee feels I should not be allowed to speak, that is their right, because they have full control of their own proceedings.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not want to go into a
committee of which I am not a member. Why do you suggest I should go?


George Halsey Perley: I did not suggest that. I simply said that I have never known a case where a member of the House was refused permission to speak in a committee of which he was not a member. My hon. friend's experience has been a little different, but I am sure that does not often happen.


Mr. KELLNER:: I think the members of the House will recollect that the former member for Brant, Mr. Good, introduced a resolution in this House for reducing the membership of committees, and he appeared before the committee revising the rules of the House two years ago, and made a considerable impression on the committee. I think every member of that committee was convinced that his argument was sound, and that the membership should be reduced. He had gone to a lot of trouble in getting statistics as to
Rules' oj the House

what would make a good working committee and quorum, and we adopted his recommendations which were supported by the Clerk of Committees, Mr. Todd. I think that the committee arrangement which we have to-day is probably just about as unworkable as you could get. For instance, two weeks ago Tuesday morning I was summoned to attend four different committees meeting at the same hour, and I am satisfied that many other hon. members of the House received similar notices. The impossibility of attending several different committees meeting simultaneously is apparent, and I cannot see what good it is going to do any member to be on a lot of committees which he cannot possibly attend. Under this new rule members will be able to attend their committees.
In regard to the quorum, there was a good deal of objection three or four sessions ago to the quorum being made only a small number, because that would allow a few members to get together and put things through which did not have the approval of the majority of the committee. For ten or twelve members to form the quorum of a committee of well over one hundred is a pretty small proportion, and it is a little dangerous. I think the quorum should be kept up to between one-quarter and one-third the membership of the committee. I believe that this recommendation coming from the committee will give every member of the House the opportunity to get on the one committee he most desires to be on, and the privilege, possibly the duty, of being on a second committee. I feel that that is as good an arrangement as we have had suggested up to the present time, and I recommend its adoption.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I should like to endorse the suggestions of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. I would be almost inclined to go further than he does and allow every member of the House to take part in the discussions of any committee. Perhaps that would not be practicable, but I do not see any reason why any member of the House should not be allowed to speak in any committee. In the short time I have been in this House I have noticed that the more work that is done in committee, the less discussion there is when the measure comes back to the House. The work done in committee is not so spectacular, but it is much more useful. I do not see any good reason for cutting down the size of committees, because it would only result in throwing upon the members more work that would have to be done in this chamber. I remember last year a very respected member of this House, 
the father of the House, advancing an argument in committee, and someone objected to him speaking in the committee, and wanted to force a vote. His reply was, "I will speak here or somewhere else where you will have to listen to me." I notice that members who thresh out a question in committee spend much less time discussing it in the House.
I think the objection raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to committee work as it is done at present is valid, and that more work might be done on Fridays and Mondays. I was present at a committee meeting this morning, and we are meeting again on Monday morning. I believe that a great deal more committee work could be done on Friday; on Monday many members are away.
As to limiting a membeT of the House to serving on two committees, I again endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. That proposal is not fair to members of the House. Many constituencies are interested in more than one subject. I represent a constituency myself that . is vitally interested in agriculture, in forestry, in fishing, in minerals, and in finance. Why should not their representative in this House have the right to represent them on the various committees dealing with these matters?


Mr. BROWN:: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni has raised the objection in regard to reducing the size of the committees and of the quorum required, that it might be harder to get the required percentage of the committee than under the present conditions.
It seems to me the very fact that the number of members of the several committees is reduced means that there will be more members available to attend those particular committees, and of itself justifies raising the quorum.


Alan Webster Neill: It will be easier to secure the attendance of twenty than of ten members?


John Livingstone Brown: I think my argument will
appeal to a mathematical mind.


Alan Webster Neill: Then it must be a very astute one. I cite the case of the agriculture committee, where the old: quoi'um was ten, now it is to be twenty. It will be easier to secure the attendance of twenty than of ten?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a species of higher
mathematics beyond me.


John Livingstone Brown: I repeat my argument. It will be possible because there will be more

Rules of the House
members available to make up the quorum than when they are expected to attend a larger number of committees.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall rule 10 carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No, take a vote.
Amended rule 10 agreed to.
On amended rule 11-Special committees.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, I think it
should be provided that the members be named in the original notice.


Hewitt Bostock: It is an unwritten rule
of the House that no committee can be appointed without its personnel being stated. The rule is transgressed sometimes, and it is only by unanimous agreement that such a defective motion is allowed to pass.
Amended rule 11 agreed to.
On rule 12.


John Frederick Johnston: The committee recommends that rule 12 be transferred to rule 11 as section 3.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: It will be recalled that
the other day w'hen an amendment by a private member was offered to a resolution before the committee of ways and means it was ruled out of order. I am prepared to admit that there is a difference of opinion on that point, but I think all parties are agreed that a private member has the privilege of introducing an amendment to a bill. As, however, there is no rule covering the point, we have to look to the various parliamentary authorities for guidance. Therefore I would suggest that the clerk be instructed to draft a definite rule stating the privileges of private members with respect to offering amendments either to a resolution or a bill before the committee of ways and means.
Rule 12 agreed to.
Amended rule 15 agreed to.
Amended rule 17A-Debatable motions.


Malcolm McLean: I may be reading this rule incorrectly, but it does not seem to me to carry out what is intended. It is in this form:
The following motions are debatable:-
Every motion standing on the order of proceedings for the day, except-
Then the list of exceptions is given.
-except for the second reading of a bill, or for the third reading of a bill, or for the consideration of Senate amendments-


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no. Those are debatable.


Malcolm McLean: As the amended rule is framed it makes these exceptions:
The following motions are debatable:

Every motion standing on the order of proceedings for the day, except government notices of motion for the House to go into committee at a later date, or for the-


Ernest Lapointe: No, "or, (b)."


Malcolm McLean: I will read
the paragraph in full.


Charles Marcil: The exception is really
parenthetical.


Hewitt Bostock: Would it not be better to insert "and" instead of "or"?


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is just as
well this way.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member for Melfort appears to be mistaken. The rule really provides that the following motions are debatable, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and so on. But as the question has been raised, in order to make the meaning plain the words:
-except government notices of motion for the House to go into committee at a later date,
Might be enclosed in brackets.


Ernest Lapointe: Strike out the word
"or".


Malcolm McLean: Leaving in the
word "or" means that all these other motions are not debatable.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the only exception is government notices of motion.


George Halsey Perley: You will have to strike out the word "or" in- every paragraph.


John Wesley Edwards: What is the objection to putting in before Ob) and (c) the words "every motion"?


Malcolm McLean: If "or" is struck out it would remove my objection,


George Halsey Perley: Yes, strike it out.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it agreed that the
word "or" in each section be struck out?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Amended rule 17A as amended agreed to.
On amended rule 13-Deputy speaker.
Malcolm McLean: In the first paragraph the concluding words "House of Commons of England" should be changed to read "the British House of Commons," for the simple reason that there has been no House of Commons of England for over two hundred years.

Rules oj the House


John Frederick Johnston: The language is taken from some of the old rules.


Charles Gavan Power: Why not substitute the
words "House of Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Or we could follow the language iru amended rule 1:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain-
And so on. Is there any distinction between the House of Commons of Great Britain and the House of Commons of England?


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly.


Charles Gavan Power: I understand that the title
of the House of Commons was changed at the last Imperial conference because the King's title was changed.


John Frederick Johnston: It is suggested that the concluding line of the first paragraph of amended rule 13 be changed to read: "House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain."


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why not make it simpler than that and substitute the words "British House of Commons"?


Mr. DUNNING:: This is a British House of Commons.


Charles Marcil: As in the first rule we
use the phrase "House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain," the same words should be applied later.


Malcolm McLean: It might be well to go the full length and adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Qpebec South, using the term "House of Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".


John Frederick Johnston: So that the matter
may be clear we had better have a motion.


Charles Gavan Power: I would move that this rule be referred 'back to the committee to ascertain what is the proper designation of the House of Commons to which we wish to refer.


John Wesley Edwards: The point
raised by the hon. member for Melfort is well taken. His suggestion covens the whole matter. Simply change the designation to "British House of Commons".


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a British House
of Commons.


John Wesley Edwards: This is the Canadian House of Commons.


Ernest Lapointe: ' That is fine; we are progressing, both of us.
[Mr. McLean. 3


George Halsey Perley: Why not accept
the suggestion that the Clerk ascertain the proper designation, and use that, whatever it may be?


Ernest Lapointe: That suggestion is good.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the rule carry
on that understanding?


George Halsey Perley: The first rule
would have to be amended in accordance with this so that the title might be correct in both.


[Stage Direction]
Rule agreed to.
On amended rule 14-Order in committee, of the whole.
Mr. BOYS:: I offer a suggestion-I do not know that I have any deep rooted conviction in the matter-with regard to subsection 3, which provides that the chairman shall maintain order in committees of the whole House, deciding all questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House. We had yesterday an illustration of the waste of time involved in appealing decisions of the Chairman to the House. I do not want to interfere with the provision that disorder in committee may be censured only by the House on the receiving of a report thereof. But why should not an appeal from the ruling of the Chairman in committee of the whole House be taken to the committee rather than to the House? If this were done it would result in a saving of from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour, and at the moment I cannot see any reason this should not be done. In any of the ordinary select committees, any appeal which it is desired to take from the ruling of the Chairman is taken to the committee itself, which has charge of its own proceedings. Why should not the committee of the whole House also have charge of its proceedings and decide questions taken on appeal from the Chairman? There is always a fairly good attendance of members in committee and the same result would be obtained from an appeal to the committee as from an appeal to the House. The suggestion I make is that after the word "the", in the third line of subsection 3, there be inserted the word "committee" instead of "House", so that the subsection will read:
The Chairman shall maintain order in the committee of the whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I would suggest that the appeal be taken to the Speaker. The Chairman is appointed from year to year and sometimes he is not as familiar with the rules as is the Speaker. When his decision is

Rules of the House
appealed from to the House the House frequently, from considerations of loyalty, sustains his decision, and in that way precedents are established. If his ruling were appealed to the Speaker the Speaker might very well overrule the Chairman without any great loss of dignity to the latter.


William Alves Boys: There is a difficulty in that
suggestion. We should have to go a step further, because I am sure my hon. friend would not want the committee to be bereft of all protection. I do not think he would want the Speaker to be absolutely in control of the committee, and for that reason we should have to provide for an appeal from the Speaker to the House in the event of his decision not being satisfactory. My only reason for offering the suggestion is a desire to save some of the time which at present is wasted. However, I have not any deep rooted conviction in the matter, although I do think there is no reason why an appeal from the ruling of the Chairman should not be taken to the committee of the whole House rather than to the House itself. Why should not the committee of the whole House have charge of its own proceedings as has any of the select committees?


Hewitt Bostock: I take exception to the
point of view of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) and the reason is very obvious. Suppose there should happen to be disorder in committee of the whole House and that a member should persist in creating disturbance. I am of course merely supposing a case which fortunately does not occur often. Does my hon. friend think that the ruling of the Chairman and the vote of the committee upon that ruling would be sufficient to put an end to that disorder? I think not. If an appeal is taken from the ruling of the Chairman it must come before the House; and this because of the consequences that might be involved. If the Speaker is obliged to name the member who has been disorderly, the hon. gentleman can see the grave consequences that might ensue. The leader of the House would have to make a motion, the disorderly member would be admonished, and thereupon he would be committed to the care of the Seargent-at-Arms and brought to the bar of the House. Thereafter, as Mr. Speaker Anglin, one of my predecessors, once observed, " God knows what would happen ", This is an old rule which has proved its usefulness in the past, and I think we should leave it to the House to see to the carrying out of such drastic measures as I now suggest, which now and then may 32649-801
be unavoidable. Otherwise the committee would not have the authority to deal with such a case as I am supposing.


William Alves Boys: With great respect to His
Honour the Speaker, I do not think the situation he refers to could very well arise. Let us take matters as they stand now. Suppose there is a limited attendance in committee and a question is to be appealed: the members are suddenly called in, and although they have not heard a word of what has taken place in committee they are called upon to pass judgment on the question. Those sitting in the committee, on the other hand, are in possession of all the facts; they know what has taken place, and they are in a better position to judge. I am not disturbing the closing sentence of the rule, relating to disorder. I am aware of the rule that provides that any member who is to be named can be named only by the Speaker, and I do not seek to alter that feature. However, as I say, I have no settled conviction on the matter; I was merely making a suggestion with a view to saving time.
Amended rule agreed to.
On amended rule 17C-Speaker to leave chair on Thursdays and Fridays.


George Halsey Perley: It was decided
the other day that rules 76, 77 and 78 even if not altered would come in after No. 15. It will be merely a matter of renumbering, but I thought it better to have it on record that these rules would come in in that order.
Amended rule 17C agreed to.
Amended rules 18, 19 and 20 agreed to.
On amended rule 21-No speaker to speak twice.	[DOT]
Mr. IR\INE: I want to offer a suggestion. There has been a slight oversight in the preparation of this amendment.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: This is where the
hon. gentleman should not speak at all.


William Irvine: That applies to my hon.
friend as well. I sympathize with the desire to curtail the length of speeches to forty minutes, but that is not what I want to call the attention of the committee to. The new rule provides:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order-


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend is
speaking of the new rule; amended rule 21 is now before the committee. Shall amended rule 21 carry?
Rules of the House

Amended rule 21 agreed to.
New rule to be added after rule 21- Speeches limited to 40 minutes.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend is in
order now.


William Irvine: The new rule readss as
follows:
No member, except the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
The suggestion I would make is that instead of merely saying that the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition should be permitted this extra time, the leader of any recognized party or group should also be included, and I would ask His Honour the Speaker to give this matter his consideration. We have in this House a number of groups; it may be that in the near future they will melt away into the two old parties; I do not know, but I hope that will not be so. Even if that happens, a change of this kind would not affect the rule, while on the other hand if these groups become well-established there is no reason why the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition should have the preference in this regard over the leader of any other group in this House. I would suggest the addition of the words, "or the leader of any recognized party or group in the House."


Charles Marcil: The objection I see is that there is no standard by which parties can be defined in this House. Last session I heard the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) declare that he was a party by himself. If that should be so, we will have sub-divisions of the Progressive party, we will have the Labour party and1 so on. I do not see how these parties could be recognized.


William Irvine: The word "recognized"
would mean any part recognized by the Speaker as such. I do not suppose the Speaker would recognize an individual as a party, and I think there is a reasonable understanding in this regard. There is no doubt in our minds of what the word "party" means, and if the Speaker has given recognition to a group in this House, the leader of that group so recognized should be on a par with the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition in this respect.
[Tte Chairman.]


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am opposed to this
rule in its entirety; I think we should follow the British practice where, as I understand it, there is no rule limiting the length of speeches. In Great Britain the bud!get debate is finished in two or three days; in this parliament, where our budget has not the importance of a budget in Great Britain, the discussion lasts anywhere from two to five weeks. In Great Britain this is done by an arrangement between the whips, who decide upon a certain length of time for the debate to continue. This year we had the sordid spectacle of the different whips going around insisting that the budget discussion be prolonged, and they found difficulty in finding enough speakers to continue the discussion while that debate was proceeding.
I think the regulations of the House should be as elastic as it is possible to make them, and the moment we lay down hard and fast rules we will find great difficulty in maintaining them. I think we would find some difficulty in regard to the eleven o'clock rule, and I think this forty minute rule will work a great injustice to many members of this House. In the first place we find under this rule something which I believe is novel in British procedure; it recognizes different parties in this House. I have never heard of written regulations under which different parties were recognized in the British House of Commons; there may be some such unwritten understanding as we have here, but there is nothing in the regulations to cover the point, and we are departing now from a procedure which has been long established when we recognize two groups or parties only. I would much prefer that no such recognition be given, and that we try to carry out the spirit of the rules of the House and get through our business as expeditiously as possible with no rules at all. This year we have done fairly well; there has been a desire shown in all parts of the House to not unnecessarily prolong the proceedings, and what has happened? The debate on the speech from the throne called forth practically no discussion and in spite of the fact that at times the whips found difficulty in getting enough speakers, the budget debate lasted for only about ten days. If that debate could be finished this year in ten days, is there any reason why the same thing should not apply in other years? Is there any reason why the whips of the parties could not get together and say, "The budget debate will not take more than two weeks." Is there any reason why the whips of the two parties cannot get together on the speech from the throne and get it through in a few days? The different groups of the House could

Rides oj the House
choose the speakers whom they desire to have heard, representing their particular party. I think that would be more desirable than to have a written rule in our procedure which would allow the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition to speak for an unlimited time.


John Wesley Edwards: Would the hon. gentleman be willing to comply with the decision of the whips if they decided he should not speak?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would be no more willing to comply with such a decision than would the hon. gentleman.


John Wesley Edwards: I can quite frankly say I would not be willing to do so, and I am asking if my hon. friend would.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would object to it, and that is why I am objecting to the limitation of speeches to forty minutes; in my remarks in this House I think I have only once exceeded that period. If time is being wasted in this House and if speeches are being prolonged, the government have a remedy in their hands, and I would suggest to the government and to the committee which framed these regulations that the British precedent be followed, and closure be moved.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We would be following British precedent, and after closure is moved the speeches would be limited to twenty minutes.


George Gibson Coote: Does the hon. member think it would be fair to allow those who spoke in the first few days to continue for three or four hours, and to limit those who speak at the last to twenty minutes? Would it not be more fair to limit everyone to forty minutes, and make everyone equal?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That may sound very nice in theory but it works out differently in practice. Every member of this House does not speak on every question, but any member who does desire to speak should have the right to take more than forty minutes. I think we should follow the practice of the British House of Commons and let the whips agree on a certain definite time for which the discussion will last, As one of the members of this House, Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to get rid of the budget debate in one week, and I would be satisfied to see the speech from the throne finished in the same length of time.


Peter McGibbon: How much of that time would the hon. member want?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not catch the remark
of the hon. member, and perhaps it is as well
I did not; I do not suppose I missed very much. I think it would be well if we limited the time of discussion by arrangement; this might apply to what I believe are the two main questions which take up the time of the House, that is, the budget and the speech from the throne. On other questions I do not think lengthy speeches have been made; they have been rather brief and to the point. Personally I think that by fixing forty minutes as the time limit for speeches we are assuming a certain amount of control over the private members of this House and giving certain privileges to favoured members. I feel inclined to oppose the resolution in its entirety.


Mr. POULIOT:: Will the hon. member be
good enough to define what he means by a waste of time in speeches necessitating in his opinion the application of closure?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I certainly can do that. I
hear such speeches in this House on Wednesday afternoons.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I am very
strongly opposed to long speeches and I am also very strongly opposed to this rule. I believe it is taking away from private members a privilege which should be preserved to them. Very often a member cannot say in forty minutes what he desires to say. But the difficulty is that there is so much repetition on various questions. That is where the time of the House is lost. I have noticed when estimates are going through that the most trival questions are asked and time is taken uip by the hour-all of course, for the purpose of creating political propaganda. If we had a process of education along common sense lines in this House such a rule would not be necessary. If the sense of the House on this question was so strong that it would be recognized by every member such a rule would not be necessary. I for one offer my protest as a private member to the limiting of debate in this House.


Alan Webster Neill: I realize from the way in
which the House received the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that I am essaying an unpopular task. Nevertheless I join with him in opposing this rule. I consider it of such great importance that I propose to oppose it by every possible means I can so that it shall not be said hereafter that I at any rate was a party to the adoption of this rule. My hon. friend who has just sat down objected to it on the ground that it was taking away their privileges and rights from private members. The rule goes further than
Rules oj the. Home

that: It is taking away from the people of this country the right to have their wrongs or their grievances expressed in parliament.
To deal with the thing in itself, as it were, I support the views of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) who asked why the right of reply to an unlimited extent be confined to only one member, the leader of a party in this House. Moreover even that arrangement might be abused' by a little collusion between the government and some insignificant member.


Mr. FORKE:: What does the hon. member mean by "insignificant member"?


Alan Webster Neill: I should say "the member of any numerically insignificant group." Because there is no member in this House who is insignificant if he represents the wishes of his constituents. So far as a motion of no confidence in the government is concerned, the proposed new rule provides that unlimited speech shall be confined to the member making the motion and the minister replying thereto. Now, let us visualize for a moment. Say that one of the hon. members opposite, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) gets up and makes a motion of want of confidence. It is imperative that somebody on the government side reply to him forthwith. But there are two hundred and forty-five members in the House, the life of the government is at stake-it may be going to go down-many members will want to speak; and surely it will not be suggested that the majority of the cabinet whose government is going down shall not have the right of reply for longer than forty minutes. Under this rule they would be precluded from making speeches beyond forty minutes. However, that does not worry me very much. If the opposition or the cabinet do not see the point of that there is no reason why I should worry. Now let me imagine there was a supposititious case in which a particular province was represented by only one man of a certain party in this House. Suppose the government of the day were putting through some deal extremely against the interests of that province. Suppose it was a gross gerrymander and we have heard of such cases, and it became the duty of that one miserable member to represent the interests of his province and to expose the situation. Why the hour glass would be turned upon him at the expiration of the forty minute period and he would be told to sit down.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What does my hon. friend mean by "miserable member?"


Alan Webster Neill: If I must make myself so
plain I would say "miserable" in that condition. I do not suggest that my hon. friend is miserable or ever likely to be, but a member would be miserable who occupied such a position. Now I have heard it said that the government, the Speaker, the House, would extend a' member's privileges under such conditions. Not a bit of it. Somebody would get up and draw the Speaker's attention to the infraction of the rule and he would have to enforce it. So that the member who was the sole representative of his party in his province would have to bring his remarks to a close and he could only cover a few of the necessary points in the short space of forty minutes.


John Wesley Edwards: Where is
such a case possible?


Alan Webster Neill: I would ask my hon. friend
if he has such confidence in this government that he believes it would not be possible for them to carry out a gerrymander?


John Wesley Edwards: I am asking where it is possible for only one man to be speaking for a province.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, I do not think that
needs explanation. I have known of occasions where a whole province was represented by members of only one political stripe.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no Tory from
Saskatchewan now. That is the situation you mean.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is referring to the
Yukon.


Alan Webster Neill: At any rate I point out
where you can go very far under such a rule. We have had an example of another sort quite recently. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre made a speech on the budget. Did any one of his opponents suggest on that occasion that he was obstructing, or unduly lengthening his remarks, or doing anything beyond making a fair statement on the important subject of the budget? The hon. member spoke for more than forty minutes, and yet under this rule when his time was up he would have been debarred from proceeding further and the House and the country would have lost the benefit of that speech.


Ernest Lapointe: His speech would have
been just as effective.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a matter of opinion. This speech had to do with the budget and I suggest that it cannot be dealt with in a forty minute speech. Allusion was made this

Rules oj the House
afternoon to the fact that Mir. Asquith, I think it was, in the British House of Commons dealt with an important subject in a thirty minute speech. But the conditions over there are not similar to the conditions here. In this country we go into far more necessary detail about local and provincial matters than they do in the British House of Commons, and while I desire to be loyal to the country of my 'birth I desire to point out that this is Canada and that we are Canadians, and that we should not always go to the mother country, where the conditions are very different from what they are here for examples in such matters.
Now, as the hon. member (Mr. Heaps) suggests, there is a remedy, and a very simple one, if there is abuse and the time of the House is taken up by long speeches, and that is to apply the closure. That is what it is for. We have a closure in existence now, rather a lengthy procedure, but it can be readily imposed. I know of a system of closure that is in force in the British Columbia legislature, which can be invoked in five minutes, and it is of the most drastic character. It is called moving the previous question. All a man has to do is to say " I move that the question be now put ", It is not subject to debate, and the question is put. This system operates very effectively. We have a provision in our rules for putting the previous question, but it only results in preventing members from moving further amendments. The previous question in British Columbia immediately stops all debate and the question has to be put at once without further discussion.
At any rate these are the methods I would suggest, rather than doing away with the right of free speech. I defy any hon. gentleman-I may be wrong in this, but I will take a chance on it-who supports this rule, and a great many are going to do it, to give me an instance of any civilized government, except the very inferior ones, who have a system of limiting its speakers to forty minutes or any other period, and I would like to know the name of the civilized government which does not have some form of closure. Experience proves that it is desirable to have a form of closure, and not desirable to prohibit the free speech of hon. members. I think I heard the Minister of Agriculture saying, in an aside, "We are all progressing"- he did not say we are all Progressives, but that we are all progressing-but are we? If so, we are progressing backwards. This is a reactionary thing which I have never heard of before in this parliament. We are going back instead of forward. We are going to
take away from the common people the right of expressing themselves in parliament. In the past people have gone to great length and have shed blood to get the right of free speech. I am sorry at times to have to listen to members with whose views I do not agree, which I do not relish, but these hon. members are in the same position with regard to my speeches. However, that is a small price to pay for the privilege of free speech and the opportunity afforded us to express our views and to ventilate once or twice a session, the grievances of the people we represent.
If it is necessary to have this restriction, I will test the feeling of the House by moving to add at the end1 of this rule the words:
Except on budget debate.
That would give an opportunity, once at least during the session, for a member to talk on any subject he likes, as -long as he likes. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing, and the privilege would not be abused. The idea of this rule is to shorten debate. Will it do so? What will happen? If the opposition decide to obstruct a bill, instead of putting up ten members to speak for three hours each, they will put up a hundred men to speak for forty minutes each, and what would be the result? You cannot prevent obstruction in this way. I think it is worth while to put up with some boredom in this House, in order to preserve the right of free speech.


William Irvine: The hon. member favours
the closure rather than a limited time for each speaker. Suppose half a dozen members of the House were prone to make long speeches, and each got up and spoke for five or six hours, then closure was put on, would that be better than giving a greater number of members an opportunity to speak twenty minutes or forty minutes.


Alan Webster Neill: If, as I suppose, the hon.
member would suggest that these men were going to make six hour speeches for the sake of obstruction, it would not make any difference how it was done.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member referred
to the budget debate. That is one stage. Under our rules a member can speak forty minutes on the budget debate. The budget debate is followed by a resolution which is followed by a bill, and there are sixteen different opportunities, before the bill passes the House, for a member to speak forty minutes.
Rules oj the House


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to see the
speech of the leader of the opposition cut up into sixteen sections!


Charles Marcil: An bon. member could
make sixteen different speeches.


David Spence: Some hon.
members are quoting precedents from other countries as to what we should do. We are in Canada, and in the House of Commons, and have a right to consider ourselves and need not go to other places for guidance. I am in hearty sympathy with the limit of forty minutes for speakers. There are few members in this House who cannot tell all they know in forty minutes. Many of them, including myself, can tell all they know in half an hour or possibly fifteen minutes. Every hon. member should be alive to the fact that time is money and should say as much as he can in as few words as possible. Hon. members take too long in prefacing their remarks. They think there is something in it. With few exceptions, I would say definitely that anyone who takes more than forty minutes repeats his statements, as the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) did a few minutes ago when I came into the chamber. He talked for a considerable time and said nothing, as I would be doing if I attempted to talk as he did. I think the curtailment of the length of the speeches will be beneficial and should be carried unanimously.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I think any speech is
better if it is brief. We suffer more in this House from long speeches than from any other cause. If a member could only speak for forty minutes, he would make his statement in a way people would understand what he was saying, and' the speeches would be much better. When the speeches go beyond forty minutes, certainly when they extend to an hour or an hour and a half, no matter how fine they are, very few people care to listen to them.
In regard to the rules, they were framed and designed for two parties, the government and the opposition. That would be all right when there are only two parties. That is no longer the case, and it will probably not' be the case in the future. The present indication is that there will be more than two parties in this House, and therefore I think we should cut out all exceptions. Why should the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition have a right to harangue the House at length and others be precluded from doing so? I do not think we have any worse 
offenders than the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. Even their speeches -and I say it with all respect-would be very much stronger and better if made shorter. I think we should either cut out all exceptions, or add to the exceptions the leadei-s of the recognized groups in this House.


John Livingstone Brown: I am also averse to
cutting off debate or refusing the British-bom privilege of expressing our views in this House. It is a pity that we should have to consider such a resolution in this House. But the fact is borne in upon us that a great deal of the time of the House is taken up with unnecessarily long speeches. It is not only the long speeches, but the frequent speeches. Consider the time members of the House are accustomed to occupy in discussing different matters. Some members seem to feel under an obligation to speak upon every possible subject that comes up in the House. We perhaps lose more time in that way than we do with the unnecessarily long speeches. I have noticed ever since I came into the House that much of the time of the House is wasted in committee of supply through a minister having to repeat his explanation of a particular item over and over again to different members dropping in. I think I have been as faithful in any attendance at the sittings of the House as any other member, and after listening to an explanation given by a minister I must confess I have felt a sense of annoyance when some other hon. member has come into the chamber half an hour later, and insisted on the minister repeating his explanation. Then perhaps another member will come in, and the same explanation has to be given all over again. I think a great deal of the time of the House might be saved if members who come in while estimates are being discussed would first find out whether the particular subject in which they are interested has not already been covered by the minister.
I am not going to say I am not in favour of this rule of limiting speeches to forty minutes, because generally speaking the ordinary member can give the meat of any matter within that time, but there is one consideration that we ought to take into account. If a member has prepared himself to speak on a given subject and has the matter well in hand, he naturally is prepared to cover it in a given length of time, but very frequently, as we all know, he is compelled to speak a great deal longer than he intended because of interruptions.


David Spence: Interruptions
can be allowed for.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


John Livingstone Brown: If a member is interrupted
lie has to use part of the time that he intended to devote to his prepared speech to go off into side-lines into which he is drawn by the interruptions, so if we decide to limit the speeches to forty minutes, I think we should go further and absolutely forbid interruptions when a member is making his speech. We cannot consider this matter simply from the standpoint of the speech the member is prepared to make. It would put a member in a humiliating position, after having prepared a well-rounded speech from start to peroration, to be compelled to stop before he bad covered his subject in the way he was prepared to do.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 15. consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Tuesday I was referring to the resolution to ratify the Petersen contract, 'because to my mind there are aspects of similarity between it and this proposed bill. The Petersen contract was entered into by the government in 19125. It contained a laboured preamble that the government intended thereby to secure control of ocean freight rates, but it was plain to anyone who read the agreement that in the final analysis such control would be passed over to Sir William Petersen. Of course, it sounded fine to say to the members of this House: Oh, you are voting to give the government control of ocean freight rates, to put an end to a shippihg monopoly on the Atlantic. We struggled hard to impress upon the government that its claims were false and misleading, but they insisted that the contract must be regarded as almost inviolate. The then Minister of Trade and Commerce said: The contract is cast iron. The Prime Minister said:	We never would have made the
contract unless it entirely carried our judgment. What happened1? Against our protest the contract was referred to a special committee.
That committee laboured long over the matter and considering what was spent by the government and by those who were in attendance to give their views either for or against, probably, at least 8250,000 was expended in connection with the reference. When Sir William Petersen could not get what he thought was secured to him by the contract, by reason of the fact that the government could not secure its ratification by parliament, not only was the contract killed but its rejection involved his death.
Now, I do not imagine for a moment that the promoters of this bill may die in the committee room. But what has happened in the course of their efforts to secure its passage through this House? Every member has had the bill put before him as a measure which might mean-I will put it that way-which might mean the construction of a canal in the Georgian bay district. Nothing of the kind is intended. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) so acknowledges. He told us on Monday night that the issue involved was power, not a canal. He used the word "canal" only once in the whole course of his address, and then not to suggest that it was even a possibility. If I can do nothing else, Mr. Speaker, I want to register a strong protest against hon. members being hoodwinked and made fools of by promoters who lead us to believe that they want one thing when in reality they want something entirely different. The Right Hon. Winston Churchill has described that practice as the policy of "hugger mugger," and this certainly is an application of it. And hugger mugger he defines thus. When you want something very badly you have a grpat chance of success if you can fix in the public mind something else which the public desires very much and which you use as a cloak to cover the object you are after yourself. When you have well camouflaged your object then you try as vigilantly as you can to obtain it, and you may find in the end that you get what you want. I say it is beneath the dignity of this House and of every individual member of the House that a canal should even be mentioned or the possibility of its existence mooted in connection with this bill. Yet we have heard member after member from Alberta, 'Saskatchewan and Manitoba dealing with the Georgian bay canal and telling us how much the freight rates were going to be reduced.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to leave on the House an impression which possibly is not accurate. I do not think that any member from Alberta has supported the idea of building this canal.
Georgian Bay Canal Compa/ny


Mr. RY  CKMAN@: The mistake, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely mine. Possibly the members from Alberta belong to one of the cleverest sections of the House, and they are not prone to errors of that kind. Certainly, however, members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario who have been discussing this canal have suggested that as a result of its construction wheat would be moved at a cheaper rate, and they have also seen the vessels navigating this imaginary canal in less time and at less cost than other transportation lines operate. There are canals in Mars, so they tell us, and there are more chances of these members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario sailing on those Martian water-ways than on the Sifton canal which they have been talking about. I therefore object to this legislation being promoted in this House on the basis of the canal to be constructed. There is of course, in the bill not one word that has obviously to do with electrical energy, but that is the whole object of the bill. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) said, "Oh, well, this bill has been renewed from year to year fourteen times. Is it not very strange that those opposing it so very vigorously now should not have opposed its last renewal?" Here again I for one have to make a confession, which is something I do not like to do. This bill absolutely fooled me. I thought, when it came before the House in 1924, that it was really intended to build a canal, or that at any rate somebody was lingeringly thinking of a canal. I do not believe there was any such object in view at that time, and I am the more confirmed in this opinion by the fact that the bill of '1924 contained a saving clause which protected the rights of the country. That clause is omitted from the bill now before us, and that omission leaves the bill absolutely one of power and not one that aims at the construction of a canal. That saving clause, which was enough to disarm anyone, provided that the government of Canada could, on one week's notice, take over the whole enterprise, assume possession of it, enjoy its property, and this by paying merely the value thereof. That, clause, I find, is left out of this bill and the omission, I maintain, has made the power feature the only object of this legislation. If the promoters of the bill spend $50,000 they have nine years in which to lay hold of and control every horsepower of electrical energy that can be developed upon the Ottawa and French rivers, provided always that the provinces have not exclusive jurisdiction. The gist of the bill-and no one can deny it-is that the expenditure of $50,000 gives to these private interests, so 
far as the government of Canada is concerned, the right to develop all the power they possibly can in the nine years, to the whole extent of the 1.000,000 horse-power. Then what happens? The husk of the charter in the shape of the canal proposal falls away, and these interests are absolutely confirmed by our legislation in the sole control and ownership of that immense value in electrical energy. When we find a bill involving such consequences inimical to the interests of the country, it is our duty to administer a reproof to those who promote such a bill. It is our duty to defeat it rather than aid its progress through this House.
While I do not like even to mention the word canal as a possibility in connection with this legislation, I would point out that in 1914 there was appointed by the government a commission consisting of Mr. W. Sanford Evans and two other gentlemen to investigate the practicability of the whole Georgian bay canal project. That commission reported. I know very well the gentleman who acted as its chairman, a man who lives and has lived' for a number of years in the west, who understands the wheat trade probably as well as any man in Canada and who is familiar with the transportation problems that face that trade. The report was made by the commission to the effect that this canal was not feasible and would never be an advantage to the farmers in the way anticipated by Sir Robert Perks and those who advocated the canal. It was further reported that nothing could be gained by a canal of this description even if it could be built, and the whole thing passed out of the picture. No reference has been made to that report by anyone now pretending to be interested in the canal. The minister did not refer to it when he spoke the other evening, and no member of the government, not one of the promoting party, has seen fit to controvert or even to mention the report of that commission. I say, therefore, that so long as that report stands unanswered, the possibilty of this canal becomes even more remote than it was before. And that is so far off that its distance would have to be measured, as great distances are measured, by so many light years-again reaching the regions beyond Mars.
Some of us were quite interested in what was said by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) the other evening. He has been criticized by the Toronto Globe, which as every one knows is not a paper which as a rule supports the Conservative party, for having played small politics in his address to the House, and I think he left a false impression upon the House which I hope to be able to correct. The lease entered into in 1921

Georgian Bay Canal Company
was referred to and condemned, and I want to draw attention to the fact that after condemning the 1921 lease and after condemning in perhaps stronger terms the 1926 lease he told us that the government of which he is a member renewed that 1921 lease for five months, and it is in existence to-day. If that lease was improper, which was the impression given, then it was the duty of this government and of the minister who claims it was improper to cancel it at the first opportunity; that was not done and it is in existence at this very moment. This fact, it seems to me, robs the attack of the Minister of Railways of much of its sting. He went on further to say that the lease entered into' in 1926 was ill-timed; why? Because it was negotiated about three months in advance of the time when the existing lease fell in. The minister left the impression that this was done because of the near election. The lease expired on December 1, the men concerned in that lease are at least business men, and three months was all too short a time in which to make arrangements to prevent cutting off the consumers of power in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. But the minister said also that the lease of 1926 contained a clause which meant that $600,000 of the money of the people of Canada was given up for the benefit of the lessees. What does that mean? The lease runs for eighty years, which means about $7,500 a year and if the minister examines the matter he will find the reduction in the price of power was made in consideration of the term of the lease. The first lease was for five years and the second for eighty years, and a reduction was demanded and given to the consumers to the amount of $7,500 a year. The consumers got the benefit of it, but the impression left with the House was that the lessees realty benefited.
In the next place the minister made a great play out of the alleged fact that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec were each to receive one-third of the rental, in case the rental was reduced. To put it more clearly, it will be remembered that there are two disputed claims to the power; the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have their rights and this Dominion is asserting its right. It is claimed that all the power belongs to the provinces but the Dominion has made an agreement whereby the rental is paid to it, and this clause which the minister attacked merely provided that in case Ontario and Quebec established their rights and exacted payment of the rental to them, by so much as the rental had to be paid to the provinces-the Dominion would abate. That is only fair; if it turned out that the
provinces were by law entitled to collect the rent, the Dominion would have to be satisfied with that condition. There is no complaint that the provinces are not parties to this lease; it would not be artistic draftsmanship or conveyancing if they were parties to it. They make their separate arrangements and the Dominion makes its arrangement, but at the time these leases were entered into the provinces were consulted, and my information is that on the last occasion, in August of 1926, both the provinces of Ontario and Quebec were satisfied with and desired the lease which was entered into. The minister said, "Oh, a lease of this valuable property was given for eighty years, until the year 2006." That is only about twice as long as this charter has kicked around this House and further, if the principle of this bill is adopted on second reading it is not only giving away 300,000 horse-power until 2006, but it is giving away 1,000,000 horse-power to the Sifton interests forever. That, it seems, is what the minister advocates. The principle of this bill now before us gives the power to be developed under it, so far as the Dominion has the right to do so, to these interests forever; whatever is in their hands at the end of nine years belongs absolutely and forever to the promoters of this bill. When the matter is looked at in that way I think it will be seen that instead of an improvident lease having been made, those who acted with the consent and approval of the provinces were acting in the interests of the Dominion of Canada as well. If there is a disputed title; if the provinces claim all and that claim is sustained, in any case the Dominion of Canada will have a one-third interest. It may very well be that the courts and the Privy Council, if it goes that far, will decide the proportions should be different, but I fail to see how it can be proved that the provinces are not entitled to at least two-thirds of the water-power developed by what has been already held to be their water. Therefore it seems to me that the care taken by those acting at the time in the right of the Dominion of Canada has been absolutely justified by the results.
What happens now? We have the contract which was made by the Conservative government approved by the Liberal government; we have this question of power, with its uncertainty as to title and right; we have the government of the day saying, through the Minister of Railways, that this matter must be brought to the attention of parliament. It is now before parliament; it is certainly within the power of the government to investigate anything that may be in any
Georgian Bay Canal Company

shape or form supposed to be not in accordance with the very right and justice of the case nor in the interests of the country. But what has not been done, and I submit should not be done, is to investigate, as the Minister of Railways has proposed, a question of this kind upon a reference to a standing committee in the case of a private bill. The promoter of a private bill is supposed to look after the passage of that bill, is he not? Why does the Minister of Railways wish to investigate public matters upon a private bill that has no reference on its face to the subject of the investigation? I submit that the reference would not be wide enough to include any such subject as the minister hinted he was anxious to investigate. The minister said that the matter only became of great national and .provincial importance when it was found that this lease, the latter one, had been cancelled by the government. I submit that plainly that is not the reason why such newspapers, flaming evangels of the Liberal cause, as the Ottawa Citizen, the Toronto Globe, and the Brantford Expositor are telling this government that at the first opportunity this bill should be thrown out of the House. And newspapers in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as in all parts of Canada, have said that this bill should be given no consideration whatever. I cannot understand how anyone living in the province of Ontario who has been accustomed to hear what is said by men who have benefited from the development of hydro-electric power in the province could imagine for a moment that the people of that province would brook any interference at the present time with what they consider their rights to power and the further development of power. There is no county in the province of Ontario except possibly, and only possibly, the two very far eastern counties, and I would not even except them, where anyone can stand up and say that he is opposed to what has been accomplished by the province of Ontario in the development of hydro-electric power. They want to see that good work go on, they are determined that it shall go on; and no question of party politics, no public issue that I know of, no other issue of any kind, ranks in importance with the determination of the people that hands shall be kept off the development of power in the public interest. That is the reason for my opposition to this bill.
I object to the bill in the first place, because it is false and misleading in character as I have explained. I object to it in the second place because it is against the interests of the Dominion of Canada so far as the federal authority has the right to deal

with this power. I object to it in the third place because if the Dominion does insist that it has a claim to this power, it will mean that litigation will take place, time will be consumed, and money will be expended and I believe not to the benefit of the people. I object to giving this bill a second reading also because the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as I have said, are united in opposing it. I am told that Premier Taschereau of Quebec has intimated to-day that he stands wholeheartedly with the premier of the province of Ontario against this legislation. If that is the case, and the government can easily ascertain the fact, why should it not respect the will of the people? How often have we heard declarations from horn, gentlemen opposite that the will of the people ought to be allowed to take effect. I say that the overwhelming will of the people is against this bill, is against giving it a second reading.
In conclusion I want merely to read a short extract from the Toronto Globe of today, to the following effect:
But does the Georgian Bay Company think for one moment that members of the Canadian parliament are so stupid as to be misled by the stress placed on the canal feature of the charter? Does it not realize that everyone knows that no corporation will sink millions of dollars in an enterprise which, on the face of it, cannot be a financial success? So why does it not come out in the open and say that it wants the people's power rights, which would make the charter worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and without which the charter would be useless?
The people know this, the members of parliament know it, the ministry knows it. The question is not whether the Sifton interests shall get authority to build a canal, but whether they shall get the power; and on this there can be no compromise. They cannot get this power unless the government throws the weight of its votes and influence with them. Does the government dare do it? Will Mr. King risk the honour of the Liberal party and the political life of his Ontario ministers and members by thwarting the expressed wish of the people of this province? Would his chief cabinet minister, the Minister of Finance, who has rightly earned the confidence of the country for honesty and rectitude, permit the heritage of the provinces to be diverted to private interests? Would any cabinet minister at Ottawa tolerate such an abuse of public rights?
The day has passed when the people's interests can be disregarded with impunity. The sooner the federal government lets the electors know that it realizes this, the sooner will it clear itself of the suspicion which now hangs over it in the matter of a great public utility franchise.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
presume there is very little I can add to the discussion which has already taken place on this bill, but I fear, Sir, I would be negligent in my duty as a member of this House and

Georgian Bay Canal Company
I would not be true to the responsibility I owe to my constituents did I not place myself on record as being opposed to the measure that we are now considering. I have frer quently during this debate heard arguments from across the way that, whether we are in favour of the bill or not, no harm could come by sending it to a committee, that we should at least be fair and permit the bill to go to a committee and there hear all the arguments for and against it. It seems to me a rather ridiculous thing that if we are opposed to the very principle of the bill, if we are opposed to the very principles of granting water-powers to private interests, we should provide a means of taking up the time of members by sending the bill to a committee. I can hardly conceive of any member who really objects to that principle being in favour of taking that course. To my mind if one objects to that principle now is the proper time to raise the objection. Therefore I cannot understand the argument or the line of talk we have heard so much in this debate to the effect that whether we are in favour of the bill or not we should at least permit it to go to committee.
Now, Sir, my reasons for opposing this bill are, in the first place, because the waterpower will be required by the people of Ontario. Of course it can be said, and it has been said in this debate, that whether these water-powers be developed by the Ontario Hydro Electric, or whether they be developed by private interests, the people will have the use of the power just the same. But, Sir, there is a vast difference between a public utility' owned and controlled by the people of the province of Ontario, and one in the hands of a group of capitalists who will make all the money out of it they possibly can, and assess industry, and assess the householders who are obliged to use the power, all the traffic will bear. The Ontario Hydro Electric Commission now control, I understand, about 900,000 horse-power, and they have an investment of $240,000,000. On this basis it is authoritatively estimated that the 1,250,000 horse-power that this bill would give to these private interests would be worth a capitalization of not less than half a billion dollars, an enormous sum. It is proposed to put into the hands of these private capitalists the power to assess the people of Ontario and Quebec for all time to come, and to hinder in various ways the development of industry in those provinces. Of course the argument is used that the Quebec share of this would, under the policy adopted by the provincial government, be handed over in any event to private interests.
But that is not our concern; our business is to deal with this matter on our responsibility as the House of Commons of Canada. Once those water-powers are turned over to the provinces we have nothing more to say. If the Quebec government desires to turn those water-powers over to private rather than public interests, that is the business of the people of that province. On the other hand, if the Ontario government, representing the people of that province, desire that the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission should control this power, that is their business, and it is not for us to put anything in their way.
The Ontario legislative assembly has put itself on record unanimously as being opposed to this bill. Liberals, Conservatives and Progressives have joined to the last man in the Ontario legislature in opposing it. Ottawa is a city right on this wonderful waterway by which the enormous quantity of wheat we heard about was going to be transported to the Atlantic, a city, one would think, that would benefit greatly by the development of this canal. Yet we find the council of the city of Ottawa unanimously condemning this proposition and passing a resolution to that effect.
We have heard frequently during this debate that the western farmers are in favour of the construction of this canal. How often have we heard that old cryl Whenever some privileged interest wants something from this House, it is always for the benefit of the western farmer, and he is frequently invoked to support it. I would call on any of these hon. gentlemen who use that argument to show me a single instance, to quote a single statement by any one representing any body of farmers, or by any body of farmers in western Canada, showing that they have placed themselves on record as being in favour of the construction of this canal. The farmers of western Canada realize that we have already spent enormous sums of money on transportation. In addition to the already expensive canal system that we have from the head of the lakes to Montreal, we are now opening up the Hudson bay route. Some years ago we spent $170,000,000 on a transcontinental railway designed for the express purposes of giving the western farmers the shortest and best possible route by rail to the sea. But we are effectively prevented from using that route. So far as actual effect is concerned, the government of this country, or the Board of Railway Commissioners, or whoever is responsible, might just as well have built a brick wall across the transcontinental in order to prevent us from using it.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Nevertheless in spite of that we propose to spend an enormous sum of money in developing another route to the sea.
Of course we have heard frequently from protagonists of this bill that no public money is involved; that a group of private capitalists are going to construct this canal; that they are going to put up all the money. But it is really immaterial whether we provide the money out of the public treasury for the construction of this canal or give them water-powers worth half a billion dollars. I would much rather see a company come to parliament and ask for a subsidy to construct a waterway of that nature, because then we would know just what we were dealing with.
Cf course, that is all on the assumption that there is going to be a canal. I think, however, it is generally understood that this is not the purpose of the promoters at ali; that they will never construct a canal; the only object to be served is to obtain control of these valuable water-powers. I wonder if ail hon. members realize the relationship that exists to-day between water-power and industry. I wonder if they realize the dominant position that in the future may be held by Canada in the markets of the world in regard to manufactured goods. In another twenty-five years, if we retain these water-powers and use them wisely and judiciously so that industry will be able to obtain the cheapest possible power, we are going to put our manufacturers in a position almost to control the markets of the world, because every day it is becoming more and more obvious that the country which a quarter of a century from now controls its own water-powers will hold a dominant position in the markets of the world in regard to manufactured' products. Therefore, Canada's attainment of that proud position in another twenty-five years will be determined by whether or not we decide to conserve and hold these water-powers for the benefit of future generations. We are legislating to-day not for those who are here at present, but for countless millions of Canadians yet unborn, Canadians who will look back and either condemn or bless us according to the way in which we handle this great heritage that should be preserved for our children and our children's children.
Several hon. members from Manitoba have placed themselves very strongly on record as being in favour of this bill. Of course that is not a difficult matter to explain when one goes back to western Canada. It can be said that after all we were dealing with something that

was an issue in Ontario. It would not be an important matter to tell my constituents that we gave away water-powers in that way in Ontario. The issue would not be a direct one there; but to be fair and to look at this question from a natural standpoint, I would ask some of these hon. gentlemen from Manitoba to change the geographical description in this bill and to make it apply to the northern part of their province. Let us imagine to-night that we are considering a bill which proposes to canalize the Nelson river to its mouth. That ambitious project was at one time actually discussed and very seriously considered in the city of Winnipeg. The idea was to make Winnipeg an ocean port, and it was believed that the water-power that was on that great river would more than pay for the expense of canalization; that Winnipeg would then be an ocean port, and that we could deliver our grain from the city of Winnipeg by water right to the open sea. That was the ambitious project that was considered about forty or forty-five years ago in the city of Winnipeg. After all it is not such a dream and indeed some time in the future it may come true. Engineers sent out there by the Dominion government have estimated that there is no less than 6,000,000 horse-power capable of being developed on the Nelson river. That river, as we know, is one of the greatest in the world, and its vast potentialities to the province of Manitoba, can hardly yet be estimated, but some day in the future that water-power will be harnessed, and it will be developing countless industries in the province of Manitoba. It will be delivering power to the farmers of the province and to the householders in the small towns, and it will put the province of Manitoba in an entirely different position from what it occupies to-day in regard both to industry and agriculture. Indeed, I think the time will come, and perhaps before very long, when the city of Winnipeg will be one of the greatest manufacturing centres on the North American continent. That seems a dream to-day, but with these immense water-powers right at her door, and with the newer transmission developments that enable the movement of power over long distances without serious loss, it seems to me that the day will come, and before very long, when the city of Winnipeg will be one of the greatest manufacturing centres on this continent. When we come to the day when we shall need all these water-powers developed, if they have been already coralled by private capitalists, who will simply charge all the traffic will bear, what is that going to mean to the province of Manitoba? We are either

Private Bilk
going to develop enormous industries there, or with these water-powers in the hands of private capital industry will be stifled from the very beginning. I would appeal to my hon. friends from Manitoba just to visualize the effect of this bill as applied to their own province, as applied to those enormous water-powers on the Nelson and Winnipeg rivers, and let them imagine for one moment the wave of popular indignation that would sweep not only over the province of Manitoba but over the whole of the west if there was any attempt on the part of this parliament to alienate those resources for all time to come. I ask my hon. friends to take that into consideration before they vote to send this bill to the committee.
I say again that I am opposed to the very principle of this bill, and that being so, I can see nothing to be gained from sending it to the committee. Therefore I intend to vote against it.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: As
it is just approaching nine o'clock-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rise just to ask Your
Honour one question. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) is the mover of the main motion, and would naturally have the right to close the debate. I want to ask Your Honour, is he exercising that right now?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: He has the right to
speak. There is an amendment before the Chair.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
entitled to speak on the amendment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And again in closing the
debate?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.
Mr. STEVEN'S: I am not objecting at all. I merely rose to ask Your Honour's ruling.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There is now before the House the main motion and the amendment thereto, and as I understand the rules, Mr. Speaker, I have the right to speak upon the amendment, and again upon the main motion. As it is now approaching nine o'clock, and as my remarks will be rather extended, I should be glad, Mr. Speaker, if you would call it nine o'clock and adjourn the debate until Monday.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Chevrier moves that
the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Carried, by unanimous consent.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.




[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 66, to incorporate Gatineau Transmission Company.-Mr. Fontaine.
Bill No. 69, respecting Dominion Electric Protection Company.-Mr. Marcil.
Bill No. 106, to incorporate The Premier Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Smith (Stormont).
Bill No. 107, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Cahan.
Hewitt Bostock: In order to meet the
wishes of many hon. members and to save time I will, if there is no objection, just read the numbers of these two pages of divorce bills, which can be given a second reading en bloc, on division, of course. They are Nos. 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104. It is moved by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman), seconded by the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson), that these bills be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Carried.


Ernest Lapointe: On division.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Amy Humphrey Lowe.-Mr. Rennie.
Bill No. 82, for the relief of Erik Herman Delli.ng.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. S3, for the relief of Samuel Stanley McNeely.-Mr. Lang.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Edna May Stevens.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Beatrice Maude Cammed.-Mr. Ryerson.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Stanley Moor-house.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Blanche Evelyn Parkinson.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Lillian Franklin Boddy.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Ninna Louise Bryant.-Mr. Edwiards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 90, for the relief of John Thomas Fray.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Cornelia Mosca Cristoforetti.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Florence Emaline Hindi.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Dorothy Helen Elliott.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Myrtle Blanche Weeks.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Dorothy Olinda Tew Phillips Lawson.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Privat'e Bills

Bill No. 96, for the relief of Nelson Douglas Longfield.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Susanah Ivy Y. Cave.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of James Arthur McNish.-Mr. Garland (Carieton).
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Elizabeth Maud Maitland.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 100, for the relief of Agnes Seeds. -Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of James Sharkey. -Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Lawrence Raymond Sinclair, otherwise known as Lawrence Reginald Sinclair.-Mr. MtiPhee.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Ruby Pearl Northam.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Leila Beecher Smith Kerman.-Mr. Young (Toronto).
Bill No. 110, to incorporate the president of the Lethbridge stake.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 112, respecting the Bronson Company.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 116, to incorporate " La Congregation de Saint Dominique du Tiers-Orde en-seignant."-Mr. Raymond.
Bill No. 120, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Denis (Joliette).
Bill No. 143, to amend an act respecting the-Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson's Bay Railway.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 144, respecting the Midland Railway Company of Manitoba.-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 145, to incorporate Thousand Islands International Bridge Corporation.-Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).
Bill No. 153, respecting the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec.-Mr, Edwards (Ottawa).



JOHN E. RUSSELL COMPANY, LIMITED PATENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 117, respecting a patent owned by the John E. Russell Company, Limited.-Mr. Chevrier.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I shall have something to say on this patent bill, Mr. Speaker.
Bill stands.
JAMES MCCUTCHEON COLEMAN PATENTS On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 118, respecting certain patents of James McCutcheon Coleman. -Mr. Jacobs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is another patent bill, Mr. Speaker, on which I shall have something to say.
Bill stands.



CHESTER EARL GREY AND AAGE JENSEN PATENT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 148, an act respecting a certain patent owned by Chester Earl Grey and Aage Jensen.-Mr. Jacobs.
Hewitt Bostock: Is this bill opposed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: On this patent bill also, Mr. Speaker, I shall have some remarks to make.
Bill stands.



RULES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of the report of the committee on rules-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering the new rule to be added after rule 21, limiting speeches to forty minutes. Mr. Neil'l had moved to add to this rule the words, " except on a budget debate". Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I take this opportunity to correct a slight misunderstanding that occurred this afternoon between myself and the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards)? He asked me if I could think of a situation where there would be a province with only'- one representative, and I did not catch his question. I was referring to a case where there might 'be sixteen members from a province, fifteen of one particular stripe of politics and the other of the opposite stripe, that the party to which the fifteen adhered might bring in something prejudicially affecting the interests of the (province, and that the duty of combating the proposal would devolve on that one representative. I was not referring to a case like the Yukon.
In defence of the proposed new rule an hon. member explained this afternoon that there were no less than sixteen opportunities to speak on the budget. If you multiply sixteen by forty, you get a total of ten hours and forty minutes, if a member took advantage of his opportunity. Where is the saving of time? In the one case he makes sixteen speeches consuming ten hours and forty minutes, but in the other case his physical limitations would stop him long before he had spoken for that length of time. If it will not make any difference, why pass the rale?

Rules oj the House


Charles Marcil: A money bill cannot be
passed two stages at the same sitting without unanimous consent. So at one sitting a member could speak forty minutes and repeat his performance the day after until the bill was disposed of. Consequently I dio not think we are curtailing a member's right in any way. This simply means that he cannot speak for more than forty minutes at a time.


Alan Webster Neill: I appreciate the point made
by the hon. gentleman, but dividing a speech into sixteen sections seems to me something like dividing your prayers into sixteen portions. It has been suggested that this new rule will shorten debate and stop obstruction. Will it? We have an instance at the present time in the opposition to the Georgian bay canal bill. I do not think I can be accused of imputing improper motives by terming the opposition "obstruction", because the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) said more than once in the course of his speech against the bill: "I am here to talk it out."


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Did you ever do that?


Alan Webster Neill: Sure-when I thought the
occasion justified it.


James Dew Chaplin: That is what we are doing
in this case.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not objecting to hon.
members opposite taking advantage of the rules; that is their privilege. But supposing the speeches had been confined to forty minutes-and most of them were made within this time-it would not have prevented obstruction. It would only mean putting up more men each to talk forty minutes instead of a few occupying the attention of the House for a hundred minutes each. It would be something like the Irishman who pondered whether he would save a million dollars in one j^iar or accomplish the same purpose by saving one dollar a year for a million years.
I heartily agree with the remarks made by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) when he put his finger on the cause of a good deal of waste of time in connection with the estimates. I have noticed exactly what the hon. gentleman has described. A minister will patiently explain an item half a dozen times, and then someone who has not taken the trouble to be in his seat saunters in and starts the thing all over again. If the minister, somewhat harrassed, answers sharply, that member immediately begins to whine and complain how difficult it is to get a civil answer to a civil question. There are other difficulties. A member speaks for a minute or two and sits down and someone else jumps
up and discusses a totally different phase of the subject. More time is wasted in that way in committee than in reasonably lengthy
speeches.
As regards the forty minute proposition, as the hon. member for Lisgar pointed out, no allowance is made for interruptions. Give a man a couple of untenable points of order and a couple of irrelevant questions that throw him off the track and you waste so much of his time that his speech will not amount to very much. It may be said that allowance will be made for this, but it is not expressed in the rules. If it were, matters would be different. A man might raise a point of order on very slim grounds and so take up a good deal of the time of the member speaking. Someone might see a fancied insinuation in the speaker's remarks and raise a point which might consume fifteen minutes. Someone else asks a fool question that takes up ten minutes or more. It may be contended, .of course, that no one is bound to answer; but there are circumstances under which a man is bound to do so if he does not want to rest under an undeserved odium. Suppose a member were advocating a certain railway line and someone asked, "Is it not a fact that you are being paid by the railway company to promote this bill?" Can that member allow such a question to pass unheeded? Of course not; if he did the newspapers next day would come out with a headline, "Member accused of being paid servant of company and sits dumb under accusation". There are occasions, I say, on which a man, either through courtesy or of necessity, must reply to interruptions. Allow four such interruptions as I have suggested'- and there is nothing abnormal about the suggestion, for these interruptions do occur- and how much of the forty minutes ha3 he left?
The closure has been advocated, and it is said that is even a more extreme form of preventing debate. But there is this difference between the closure and the method proposed in this rule: the restriction of free speech by means of curtailing the time allotted to any member is imposed automatically by this rule, whereas in the case of closure notice must be given by the government, who must assume the responsibility before the country. If the government abuse the closure method, they must answer to the people. There is therefore no danger in that direction. As a matter of fact there is no record in any of the countries in which the closure is practised of this method having been seriously abused, and that for the very reason I mention, of the responsibility which the government assumes

Rules of the House

in imposing it. This little private rule of ours, however, would be invoked automatically without any responsibility on the part of the government or of any member of the government.
I come now to another point of interest apropos of the situation. Let me ask hon. members from the maritime provinces what they consider the most important piece of legislation before parliament this session. Is it not the matters involved in the Duncan report? Would those hon. gentlemen like this resolution to come into force at once, every one of them being limited to a forty minute speech on that important report? That, I think, is a good illustration of the danger I am pointing out in connection with a rule of this kind.


Mr. MacLAREN:: We will accept these
regulations in toto to-night.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the hon. gentleman willing to accept them?


Murray MacLaren: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Does my hon. friend speak for the Whole party?


Murray MacLaren: I was not asked to speak for the party. The hon. member wondered whether anyone from the maritime provinces would be content to deal with the Duncan report under the forty minute limitation. My reply is, I am prepared to accept all these regulations in toto to-night.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I apologize to the hon. gentleman. I gave him credit for more devotion to his province than he appears to have.


Murray MacLaren: The case of my province is so clear that I can state it in fifteen minutes.


Alan Webster Neill: I foresee another result Which will follow from this rule. The rule will lead to speeches being written out and rattled off as speedily as possible, and in this I anticipate a great advantage to the hon. member for Fort William. Why should that hon. member be given an advantage over all the rest of us? It is to handicap those less ably endowed than he, and it is not fair. There should be some sort of handicap imposed upon him. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is a notorious fact that the best speeches are not those that have been written out and that are read off. Most of the best speeches are delivered from notes, or without any such help at all.


Ernest Lapointe: And they are not the longest, either.


Alan Webster Neill: They are often not as long as the others. Now, how are we to ascertain
fMr. Neill.]
how long any given speech must be in order to come within the compass of the time allowed? The only way that can possibly be determined is for the member to have his speech typewritten and then read off to someone who holds a stop-watch to time him. Will the stenographic staff be equipped with stopwatches, and shall we be Obliged to read our speeches to the stenographers in order to ascertain whether they can be crammed into thirty-nine or forty minutes? And will there be any extra compensation to the staff for the added work in this direction? Why, Mr. Chairman, the result will be simply this: either this rule will be abused or it will be ignored altogether. I do not know what will happen, but either of these things will be the result. The chances are tlhat as time goes on the rule will be practically ignored, and if that is the case, what is the use of adopting it. At any rate, I predict one or other of these consequences. An hon. member reminds me that my time is nearly up. Well, for once in my life let me exceed the time limit.
I am perfectly serious about this subject, notwithstanding that it has its humorous aspect. There will be a reaction in the country to . the imposition of such a rule as this. The people will have a feeling something of this character: "We sent these men to Ottawa to represent us and express our views. We paid them to go there and speak for us"-because after all, to put it bluntly, we are paid to come here

"and now they are shirking their responsibility." That is not tTue, I know, but that is what the people will fancy. I say, there will be a reaction to this rule and we shall be suspected of shirking our responsibility.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Does the hon. member assume that members who do not speak forty minutes necessarily Shirk their responsibility?


Alan Webster Neill: No, perhaps they serve their
purpose by listening. As Milton says, "They also serve who only stand and wait." I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we could better deal with the problem by an appeal to our dignity, to our esprit de corps. I have not the resolution before me, but it is in my recollection that years ago a motion was passed in this House with reference to lengthy speeches containing voluminous quotations and involving a waste of time. This practice was deplored and the resolution went on to recommend to members that they abstain from the propensity to being so long-winded. It did have the desired effect on those members to whom it was addressed and who have since ceased to belong to the House. I suggest an appeal

Rules oj the House
to the common sense and the sense of dignity of the House. Let hon. gentlemen try to cut down the length of their speeches. An appeal of that sort, I am sure, would be more effective than any hard and fast rule such as is now proposed. W hat we should be guided by in this connection is what has characterized the British constitution, which is founded almost entirely upon precedent rather than upon the letter of any rule-precedent broadening down to precedent. The statement was made not long ago that if we endeavoured to put into legal language the bonds that bind the dominions of the empire together, it would be exceedingly difficult to secure unity. That is true, and we should try to keep it in mind. We are trying to make hard and fast rules when it would be better to leave it to the good sense and judgment of the members of the House. Are we going to accuse ourselves of being lacking in good sense, good taste and good judgment? The amendment I have proposed is very simple; if I might explain it, it is intended to allow members to speak as long as they think necessary on only one occasion during the course of each session; that is, on the budget. The budget covers a large number of subjects, and I do not think the dignity of parliament will be at all endangered if once in the course of each session a member is allowed to speak as long as he wishes. If we find that this still materially handicaps parliament we can change it another year, but I would suggest that we are passing a lot of very drastic rules to-day some of which we do not understand and will not appreciate until later on, and I think we are going too far altogether when we limit the right of free speech.


Mr. MANION:: I am going to take the
liberty for a few moments of giving the reasons why I range myself in this matter beside the Minister of Justice and others who served on the committee in favour of forty minute speeches. It is not, as my hon. friend has said, because I ordinarily speak so rapidly, but because I believe it would enhance the value of our debates if they were boiled down. Someone has well said, and it has often been repeated, that brevity is the soul of wit, and I do think that most of our speeches would be improved by being shortened and by doing away with a lot of these excrescences of which we are all guilty at times, particularly if we have not given proper time to the preparation of our remarks.
This afternoon as I listened to the debate without participating in it, I remembered having read some years ago a book by Lord Curzon on parliamentary eloquence, which I
have since looked up to check my memory. In that book the author discussed eloquence from the speeches of the different speakers he had heard and some which he had just read, and he gave as one of the three greatest masterpieces of English eloquence the Gettysburg speech by Lincoln, which has been quoted again and again as perhaps the greatest masterpiece of eloquence in the English language. Some years ago I timed myself in reading that speech, and I find that it takes about a minute and a half to read it all.


Alan Webster Neill: But we are not all Lincolns.


Robert James Manion: No, we are not, but I do not know that my hon. friend had to say that. I remember that the author quoted at the same time what he considered the three great masterpieces of literature, two of them speeches by Lincoln and one a speech by William Pitt. The second speech by Lincoln was his second inaugural address, which was very brief, while the masterpiece by William Pitt consisted of only three lines. When great master pieces of eloquence can be made in such a brief time, it seems to me that forty minutes should be long enough for those of us who, like my good friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) are not Lincolns. We should be happy to take less than forty minutes even, and so boil down our addresses. It seems to me that we might even go further in this resolution, and put some time limit on the debates. When we take a month or six weeks, as has been the case in a number of the eleven sessions I have been in the House, in debating either the speech from the throne or the budget, I think we are taking altogether too much time; I think we might well make the limit a week or ten days in a dress debate of any kind. However, that is not before us at present, and I do not intend to press it, but I think everyone who has been in this House for several sessions will agree that on those occasions when the closure has been put in force and speeches have been limited to twenty minutes, we have heard addresses of the very best type, cut down to that- length of time.
Since my good friend from Comox-Alberni took me into account, Mr. Chairman, I just wished to place myself on record as against his amendment and as favourable to the report of the committee, because I think if we can lessen the length of our speeches, cut down the duration of the sessions and make the sacrifices of public men a little less than they are at present, we will build up the whole character of our parliamentary institutions.
Rules of the House


John Wesley Edwards: I was very much disposed to oppose the adoption of this rule, but felt that it would foe useless to do so after the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) spoke in opposition to it, because in opposing it he has given a very good demonstration of why it should be adopted. It took the hon. gentleman twenty-five minutes to express his views in respect to this question, and I can understand why he particularly does not want any limit placed on the budget debate. If it takes him twenty-five minutes on a little rule like this it would take him about twenty-five weeks to express his views on a subject like the budget. The hon. gentleman suggested that this limit should not apply to the budget debate and as I understood him his reason was that he is in a class by himself from the province of British Columbia, so far as the budget is concerned. He therefore thinks that he in particular should have a little more latitude than other people.


Robert James Manion: It is twelve to one.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes. Well, if you apply that principle, and accept the argument that these various groups should be recognized, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would be able to speak on the budget as long as he pleased, because he is the only one from British Columbia holding the peculiar views to which he subscribes. The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) should then have unlimited time also, because she represents all the women in the Dominion of Canada.
I was rather struck with the argument of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), who argued strongly against this forty minute rule. The way he would handle the matter is this: He would refer it to the whips and let them limit the time and make a selection of the men who should speak. That is nothing but the application of closure through the medium of the whips, and I object most strongly to it. I presume the reason why exception is made in the case of the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, a minister moving a government order, a member speaking immediately in reply to such minister, a member making a motion of no confidence in the government and a minister replying thereto is because, in the case of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition and other ministers, of their lack of experience in public speaking; they possibly need a little more time than others in which to express their views. If that is not the reason I do not know what it can be un-
(Mr. Manion.]
less it is that the matter is of so much importance that they should have special regulations.
The hon. member for Comox-Albemi argued that this rule should not apply to the budget debate, but might I point out in opposition to that suggestion that if an exception is made in that case certainly other matters will come up of even greater importance than the budget. I venture to say that many hon. members of this House regard the Duncan report, for instance, as of greater importance so far as this session is concerned than the budget debate, and why we should make an exception in the case of the budget and not in other matters I cannot possibly understand. What I particularly wish to say is this:	If
an exception is made to this rule in regard to the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and certain other members mentioned, although I am not prepared to agree that an exception should be made, then it does seem to me that the exception should be carried a little further in order to apply to any member who introduces a resolution; such a member should have a little more than forty minutes in which to lay his case before parliament. On the order paper this session, for instance, there are a number of motions standing in the names of different hon. gentlemen, many of which are of great importance. I can readily understand why it might be somewhat difficult for a member introducing one of these subjects to cover the ground as it should be covered in the space of forty minutes. I am not arguing against the rule of forty minutes if it is applied all round, but I do say that there are subjects on the order paper before us which would indicate to me that private members under certain circumstances, should be exempted from the application of this rule just as much as these who are especially named for exemption. I believe the idea of cutting down or limiting the length of speeches is a very good one, and I take no particular exception to it, but I think it should be applied all round and made applicable to every membeT, ministers as well as others.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I disagree most
heartily with the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and to oppose the amendment which he has submitted to the House. We have heard the honest expression by His Honour the Speaker this afternoon that the very best speeches delivered in this chamber were only of twenty minutes duration and given under the closure. I think we should attach a good

Rules oj the House
deal of importance to a statement such as that coming from the gentleman who presides over the deliberations of this chamber, and who was the chairman of the committee that revised these rules. In the past the practice has been to talk for an indefinite period. Those of us who have been in the House for the past few years have listened sometimes to speeches which occupied two hours, even three hours, and I recall an instance of a private member speaking for three hours and forty minutes. It is quite true that member did not stay within the borders of his own province nor within the confines of the Dominion itself; in fact I think he girdled the earth from east to west. In several instances I doubt very much if it was possible to follow him in all the remarks that he made.
Now the amendment as proposed by the committee is to limit speeches to forty minutes. I think the amendment does not go quite far enough. If the best speeches that have been delivered in this House only occupied twenty minutes why should we extend the time to forty minutes? Personally I would favour cutting it down to thirty minutes. I think any person who has little or much to say, and who has his subject well in hand, should be able to present his ideas in thirty minutes. Perhaps the most of us attend church service occasionally, and if the preacher were to occupy more than thirty minutes in the delivery of his sermon we would be very much dissatisfied. As a matter of fact if a preacher extends his sermon beyond half an hour he finds his congregation getting up and walking out, indicating that he takes too long. Now I rather think that the thoughts to which a preacher gives expression are just as good and just as necessary as the ideas advanced by a lot of members of this House-in fact they are more necessary.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Does the hon.
member advocate applying the rule of closure to ministers?


Archibald M. Carmichael: The closure is applied when members of the congregation get up and walk out.


Edward James Young: That is the
very point of the discussion to-night.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Perhaps the most
important speech delivered this session was the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, yet it took him only thirty-five minutes to deliver it. If the budget speech, covering taxation proposals for the whole Dominion, can be presented in that length of time, why should any mere member of parliament need
more than even half an hour to present the needs of his constituency? It is true that any of us could take more than half an hour. A member could speak for an hour and a half and say no more than he could say in half an hour, but that is not a legitimate reason for insisting upon the longer period of time It would be a good deal better to have an expression of opinion by several members in the same space of time that such a speech occupies. In the case of the member who spoke for three hours and forty minutes a couple of years ago, if there had been a limit of half an hour we could have had seven speeches in that period of time. Surely in a budget debate it would be much more preferable to have the opinions of seven members from different portions of the country than simply to have the opinion of one individual delivered at such length. Therefore I would be very much opposed to the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi. I would prefer there should be a thirty minute maximum, but I presume the committee have considered the matter from all angles, and perhaps the limit fixed in the proposed rule is a compromise, although I do not know as to that. A forty minute limit is better than none at all, and certainly if you had such a limit it should apply to the budget debate in which there a re speeches of such great length.
There is another matter in connection with the proposed rule as to which there should be an amendment. I do not know that it would be in order at the present moment, but possibly when the amendment we are considering is voted down, as I expect it will be, the amendment I have in mind would be in order. It is with reference to the position of those who are privileged to represent groups in the House. The proposed rule recognizes only the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, thus giving- recognition to two groups merely. I would not go to the extent of saying that we should recognize every group here no matter what their numerical strength might be, but we should take some notice of existing conditions. It does seem to me that when opinions are expressed by the government side of the House, which is supposed to be low tariff, and then opinions are expressed by the opposition side, which is supposed to be high tariff, although we know there is not so very much difference between the two, then there should be an expression of opinion by the groups in this chamber which are independent of party politics. There should be an expression by one spokesman at least representing the independent groups. I think we
Rules of the House

will be well advised to make provision in the proposed new rule for an expression of opinion on behalf of the independent groups, that in that respect they should be placed on a parity with the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Personally I have
no objection to limiting the time of speeches, but there may possibly be occasions when a man would need a longer period than forty minutes. I am inclined to think that a rule of this kind is rather an advantage, but I would agree very largely with the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in objecting to the exceptions that we have here. The proposed rule states that the leader of the opposition may have longer than forty minutes, and furthermore that the man who immediately follows the minister may have longer than forty minutes. Now as matters are arranged in this House the man that follows the minister is usually a member of the official opposition. That is not a fixed, written rule, but it is more or less a practice of the House, so that it means that almost invariably the official opposition, as it is known, has an opportunity of prolonging the speaking as long as may be necessary. That is a real discrimination against other sections of this House. We who belong to the smaller groups might very well make a plea for a little longer time proportionately than would in the ordinary way come to us. We recognize that there are certain territories, like the Yukon, or districts rather remote which, because of their peculiar character, because their population is scattered, find it necessary to have more than their proper proportion of representation. It would be quite possible for the opposition with its eighty or ninety members to say over and over again eighty or ninety times what its leader has said, whereas in the case of us who represent smaller groups, sometimes with only three or four in a group, we have only three or four men to express a viewpoint that may represent a considerable section of the public outside.
According to this rule there is an official recognition of the opposition, of parties in this House, and I do not think that is travelling along very good lines. If we are to have an exemption made in the case of the leader of the opposition, there ought also to be exemptions made in the case of representatives of other groups, and in saying that I do not forget that there are individuals like the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassal who have an equal right, with even a small

group, to represent in this House the particular point of view which they hold. Under these circumstances the only fair way would be to remove the exceptions. It may be said that because the Prime Minister or a minister introducing a government order is in an official position in the administration, an exception ought clearly to be made in his case. But that again is recognizing a wrong principle. It is very well for the government to have charge of the administration, but in matters of legislation the government already occupies too influential a position in this House. It is well known to hon. members that under existing practices it is almost impossible for a private member to introduce a bill with any hope that it will have an opportunity of coming before and being discussed by the House. On account of the regulations the bill goes down into an inferior position from which it rarely reappears. That is a wrong practice. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) to-night used the phrase "a mere member."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Private member


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not like the
term "a mere private member." I take it that the mere private member who is elected to this House has just as much right to introduce legislation as the Prime Minister himself. I say that without reflecting in the slightest on the Prime Minister or the government. As we come up from our various constituencies we have all equal rights in this House, and no rule ought to be introduced which would discriminate against any one member simply because he does not choose to associate himself with one of the larger groups.


David Spence: How long
would the hon. member expect the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, representing, as he does, only himself in this House, to speak?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not speaking for the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


George Gibson Coote: I think the House of Commons in this case is being compelled much against the wishes of many hon. members, to take some action to limit debate. No doubt the majority of the members would much prefer that each member should control himself and not make too long speeches in this House. If that were done we would not require any rule to curtail debate. It might be a good idea if we had a rule that when any hon. member had spoken for more than forty minutes, the Speaker would get up and read to him the resolution which the hon. member for Comox-Albemi quoted, and which

Rules of the House
was passed by the House some years ago protesting against long speeches. A few years ago I put on the order paper a proposal that we should have a time-keeper who would mark down the time occupied by every member speaking in this House or in committee of the whole, and that when a member had taken up say three hours in speeches during a session, his name should be handed to the Speaker and he should not be recognized by the Speaker if any other member wished to speak. This forty-minute rule is very drastic, but at the same time the House of Commons must adopt some measure of restriction of freedom of speech, because prior to this year we have had members who would speak for more than three hours. We have had leaders of the great parties in this House occupying as much as three hours. I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the rule which is in force in the United States congress. It reads:
No member shall occupy more than one hour in debate on any question in the House or in committee.


James Dew Chaplin: They hand in their
speeches to be printed.


George Gibson Coote: Possibly if the committee had suggested one hour instead of forty minutes the recommendation would have been adopted almost unanimously by the House. I do not think there is any great virtue in the amendment proposed. Many members who might wash to speak more than forty minutes might not wish to speak on the budget at all; they might wish to use those forty or sixty minutes on some other matter. I think the exceptions should be stricken out of the proposed amended rule. I am sure if the Prime Minister, making a speech introducing some bill, had not finished in forty minutes, the House would not insist that he should sit down. But it looks bad on paper to set down such exceptions as are suggested in the amended rule. There are many members who object to this forty-minute rule who would seldom speak more than forty minutes, and if one hour were suggested instead of forty minutes I am sure that would meet with general approval.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: A good deal of opposition seems to be developing over the privilege given to the leader of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not at all.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: My recollection of the opinion of the committee was that they did not necessarily mean the leader of the official opposition; that the matter might be one of
arrangement between the various groups in this House, and that it might very easily be the leader of this group who was occupying that position.


David Spence: If you will grow in numbers it will be all right.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: There have been times before when the privilege has been given to this group. We might trust to the verdict of the House; if the leader of this group required more than forty minutes, the House, I am sure, would readily grant permission. If my colleagues do not feel safe in allowing this forty-minute limit to pass, I shall be glad to support an amendment if they will introduce one, but I think we are amply protected under the rule as it stands at present.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Mr. Chairman-


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: I declare the amendment lost.	'


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, not being one of the hon. members of this House who have transgressed its rules perhaps as much as others have, because I believe the records of parliament will show that most of the members from the west irrespective of groups in this House have not abused their privileges with respect to consuming time in the debates of the last two sessions, I want to stand up in this House to-night and say that I am not very much in favour of this amended rule. If the amendment is accepted, it means that the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, a minister moving a government order, and the member speaking in reply immediately after are made exceptions to the general rule limiting speeches to forty minutes. There is another exception made of a member who makes a motion of "no confidence" in the government. The only free lance in the whole House, therefore, if this amendment goes through, will be the member who gets up and moves a want of confidence motion in the government, and it is a good job that that freedom is not being taken away from the average member. I do not think I would be in favour of this amendment if you removed these exceptions. I do not think I would be in favour of it if you increased the time limit from forty to fifty minutes. I believe the extra ten minutes would make a great difference, however. I do not see how you can
Rules of the House

mathematically figure out a speech that will take just forty minutes to deliver. If you devote ten minutes to your introduction and ten minutes to your conclusion you have only twenty minutes left for your development- not really long enough-and then instead of having actual growth of thought upwards you would have just the opposite-an arbitrary development rendered incomplete and ineffective on account of the time restriction.
So far as the time limit is concerned, I do not think we ought to put any time limit on the average member. I think it is the number of speakers we have in this House rather than the length of speeches that runs away with the time of the House. I believe that we could develop enough cooperation between the different groups of this House so that, with a word from the Speaker we could confine our speeches to a definite length of time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is my opinion; hon. gentlemen can have theirs. Then there is the question of interruptions. I believe that an interruption is all right, but it should be made with the idea of getting information, and not simply to waste time or block the business of the House, which is the purpose of many interruptions. I do not believe we could have an up to date House of Commons unless we allowed interruptions and a certain amount of cross-firing. I believe that the present method of discussion and debate is the correct method, and if you simply have a member getting up and making a prepared speech, and no interruptions or questions are allowed, you will then have a dead House of Commons.
There is another idea, which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned, though not in quite the same way in which I prefer looking at what I regard as this curtailment of free speech. We talk about representative government and democracy, but what are the facts? We have sent to this House 245 members, and from among those 245 members a cabinet, a committee of the House, is chosen. That committee of the House has the power to initiate legislation, and there is where its great power lies. It has the power to direct, to guidte, but the development of the last century has brought about a situation where the cabinet-regardless of the party in power-our main committee of the House, instead of leading and guiding rationally, dominates, and I do not believe that any committee of the House should dominate. The big thing for us to do to-day is to preserve for the people of Canada responsible and representative government on the part of private members, and as the hon.

member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said, I believe there will be a reaction in the country if we put this amendment through here to-night, and before a year goes by there will be a demand to have this new rule changed. Why proceed with something of such a temporary nature? Why accept an amendment which is not going to be permanent? If we are going to go on in that way, instead of having a white dial on the clock we shall need all the colours of the rainbow-green, blue, red and yellow-to tel us when to stop. The rights of a private member are to-day very largely limited. We are to a certain extent looked upon as ciphers in this parliament. We do not want that to go any further, and I am enough of a Liberal and a democrat to stand up here and say that I will not stand for it, and I am going to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. McLEAN (Meifort):: I would point
out-


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment was
declared lost.


John McLean: You were reading the amendment, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for North Battleford was on his feet. Time after time I have heard the chairman declare an item of supply carried, and we have proceeded with perhaps two other items when some hon. member would revert to the item that had been declared carried, and the discussion would be re-opened. In this case the hon. member for North Battleford was on his feet.


John Frederick Johnston: In this case it is somewhat different. I called for the yeas and nays, and then declared the amendment lost.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I was on my feet before you called for the yeas and nays, Mr. Chairman. I will leave it to the House.
The CHAIRMAN; I cannot say whether my hon. friend was up or not. That does not affect my statement.


Hewitt Bostock: I saw the hon. gentleman rise before you put the question, Mr. Chairman.


John McLean: I am not blaming you, Mr. Chairman, for not seeing the hon. member, but I am glad that Mr. Speaker saw him on his feet. I am not going to take long at this time.
1 would point out that this committee has already gone a long way, if these amendments go through, in restricting the time during which private members may speak. First, it

Rules of the House
is impossible to speak after eleven o'clock at night; second, it is impossible to speak on more than two committees; and third, there is a time limit on speeches of forty minutes. I have no complaint to make about that, because there is no principle involved.
I am in favour of limiting speeches ordinarily to forty minutes, but I think after we have already made these three concessions, the House should be reasonable enough to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and give the members of the House the right to speak a little longer during one debate in the session.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot agree that
what was done this afternoon was done at the expense of the rights of private members, as my hon. friend from North Battleford said. Quite the contrary. We have been told by members of the House that the government was putting itself at the mercy of private members by accepting the eleven o'clock adjournment. I am free to say, as I did this afternoon, that these rules have been adopted in a spirit of compromise, and personally I would be opposed to the eleven o'clock adjournment if this rule is not adopted also. The two must go together, or the two must fall together. I think it would be senseless to ask for any other solution of this difficulty. After all, the House has appointed a committee representing all parties and all groups in this House-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Twice.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, twice, and we all
regret that the work which had been so painstakingly and carefully done last year had to be left aside. This session it was the desire of everybody apparently that these rules should be adopted. We appointed another committee representative, as I said, of all sides. They considered the rules very carefully and this report is the result of their work. Compromises have been made. As I stated, there are some things in these rules that I do not like, but on the whole I think they are good rules and a great improvement on the old. I have been sitting in this Hoiise for twenty-three years and almost every session I have heard complaints that the rules ought to be amended, especially in regard to those two features-the duration of each day's sittings and the length of speeches, both having had the effect of prolonging sessions into the summer, to which everybody objected. I think we trust the judgment of the members of that committee. I heard even my good friend from Comox-Alberni, when he was complaining this afternoon with regard to another rule, state that
the real business of the session is done in committees, and that very seldom is their work challenged or changed in the House. Surely he ought to be consistent and accept the work of this committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not say that; someone else did.


John Frederick Johnston: The question is on the amendment moved by Mr. Neill.
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived.


Mr. GARDINER:: When I first read this
proposed new rule, Mr. Chairman, I thought it might be a move in the right direction, and provided that it is amended in some particulars I believe it might be of great benefit to this House and the country at large. However, taking into consideration the exceptions therein, certain members are placed in a privileged position, and that I object to. We must always bear in mind that we meet here on equal terms. True, we have to appoint a committee of parliament to rim the business of the country, and so far as that committee is concerned, which is known as the government, I am quite willing to make an exception under certain circumstances; but if we pass this rule in its present form I fear we shall create a dangerous precedent, for it wili place the great majority of the members in an inferior position to represent their constituents.
Another point in this proposed new rule should be given grave consideration. On many occasions I have heard His Honour the Speaker state that our rules do not recognize parties in this House. But under this new rule we are going to recognize parties. We are going a step further, we are going to recognize the opposition.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will
permit me, I do not think His Honour the Speaker has ever been heard to say that the leader of the opposition is not recognized, Always the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition has been recognized in the British House and in this House.


Robert Gardiner: That is not the rule.


Ernest Lapointe: It is the practice.


Charles Marcil: The leader of the opposition. is paid a salary and recognized by the House.


Robert Gardiner: All right, I will deal
with it from another angle. We may oppose government measures or private legislation, but I do not believe in an official opposition, and I think the time is near at hand when
Rules oj the House

opposition of that character will be eliminated, if not by the members of this House, then by the people themselves. I believe in cooperation, provided we can cooperate. Consequently I do not approve of the proposed new rule, having regard to the fact that it recognizes an official opposition, and I move the following amendment, Mr. Chairman:
That all the words after the word "except" in the first line to the word "shall" in the fifth line be struck out and the following inserted: "a minister moving a government order".
Also that "forty minutes" in the last line be struck out and "one hour" inserted.
The new rule would then read:
No member, except a minister moving a government order, shall speak for more than one hour at a time in any debate.
I move this amendment for the reason that I am not satisfied that anyone other than a minister of the crown in bringing before the House a government order should be privileged above other members-not even the prime minister or the leader of the official opposition. If we admit that these gentlemen are privileged above private members, there must be something in their election to give them that privilege. Therefore as private members we would not be able to represent our constituents to the fullest extent if we allow certain privileged members extra time at our expense. As I said before, I am quite prepared to accept the view that a minister of the crown introducing legislation should have all the time necessary to explain it, but otherwise we ought all to be on a parity, and I have sought to achieve this in my amendment.


Charles Gavan Power: I think my hon. friend's amendment really broadens the proposed rule, for it would allow every minister of the crown to speak for at least an hour.


Robert Gardiner: No, only when introducing legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: In any case I cannot see why there should be discrimination in favour of a minister as against the leader of the opposition, or a private member moving a resolution. Therefore, in order to meet what I believe to be the wishes of all members,
I move as an amendment to the amendment:
That all the words beginning with the word "except" and terminating with the word "thereto" be stricken from the clause.
It would then read:
No member shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.
That will settle the question.


Mr. McMILLAN:: While I am strongly of the opinion that as a general rule forty minutes should be sufficient for any member, I do believe it is unwise to limit debate, and further I believe if we do this we Shall realize in the near future that we have made a mistake.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Amendment negatived.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was not that an
amendment to the amendment?


Charles Gavan Power: I withdraw my motion as a subamendment and shall propose it later on as a substantive amendment.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am still of the opinion that the independent groups in this House should receive recognition. I would support the suggestion that all speeches should be limited to forty minutes, but since the committee is not prepared to go that length I maintain that the independent groups should be recognized. There are members here who have been sent by the public to present a non-partisan view and in important debates they should have sufficient time to state their point of view. I therefore propose the following amendment:	.
That after the word "opposition" in the second line the words "and one spokesman for the independent groups" be added.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It would be impossible to carry out that provision. How in the world can a number of independent groups select a single spokesman?


Archibald M. Carmichael: It would be easy for the independent groups to elect a spokesman. We have in t'hi* House a group from Alberta, we have the Progressive group, w'e have the Labour group, and we have a couple of independent members. It would be impossible for each small group to be represented independently by its own individual spokesman. But taking it for granted that the different independent groups are non-partisan, surely it would be an easy matter for them to arrange to have their views submitted by one speaker. It would not necessarily require the same speaker on every occasion, but there is no reason why one man should not be selected to represent their different points of view.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Carmichael) negatived.

Rules of the House


Charles Gavan Power: I move that all the words after the word " except " in the first line to the word "shall" in the fifth line be struck out so that the clause shall read:
No member shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You are leaving in the
word " except


Charles Gavan Power: I must amend my own
amendment; I thank the hon. member for his correction. The amendment should be to strike out all the words after the word " member ", in the first line, to the word " shall " in the fifth line.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Power) negatived on division: Yeas, 34; Nays, 68.


Alan Webster Neill: As a compromise-


David Spence: No compromise.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a nice, kindly feeling to display. It is very evident that a great many members here know in their hearts, however they may vote, that forty minutes is too short a time. I move that the " forty " be struck out and " sixty " be substituted therefor.


David Spence: That motion
was voted upon a minute ago.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: If there is to be any time limit I consider it a good deal better to have forty than sixty minutes. I am unalterably opposed to having any time limit, although I am very strongly in favour of short speeches. I cannot help feeling that what is needed around here is , a little education rather than fixed rules. It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Fort William this afternoon. I wished at the time that I could turn the clock backwards one year and have the hon. gentleman apply his qwn argument to his own position then.


Robert James Manion: You may any time you like. i


Charles Gavan Power: I rise to a point of order The hon. member is speaking to an amendment which has already been defeated.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member for Acadia moved an amendment in which there was a provision that speeches should be of sixty minutes' duration, and that amendment was defeated.


John Frederick Johnston: The point raised by the hon. member is well taken. The proposed amendment was covered in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Acadia and rejected by the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I will amend my motion, then, and make it sixty-one minutes.


Mr. BIRD:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment.


John Frederick Johnston: If my hon. friend desires to move an amendment we had better dispose of the one already before the committee. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) moves that the word "forty" be struck out and that the word "sixty-one" be inserted in lieu thereof. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?
Amendment (Mr. Neill) negatived.


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Chairman, I would move
that the words "the leader of the opposition" in the first and second lines be deleted and the following words substituted therefor: "leaders of opposition groups." I move this amendment because as a member of the committee which drew up this report I feel it to be in line with the spirit in which that committee conducted its work. On that committee were representatives of all groups in the House and on no occasion was there any disposition to overrule any just demand of any member of that committee; it was very much otherwise and a different spirit prevailed. Two things were very manifest in that committee; the first was the consensus of opinion, after we had discussed the rules for some time, that although our rules of procedure are based upon long parliamentary experience, sometimes we thought we had discovered a weak spot.


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
point of order. The principle in the amendment now moved by the -hon. member was involved in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), which was voted down.


Thomas William Bird: I think my best answer to the point of order is to continue with the line of argument I had started. I was pointing out the spirit in which all the members of that committee conducted this work, and it seemed to me that that spirit should be continued in this House. I think we all desire to reach an unanimous conclusion and to do something to further the business of the House. I was pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that in the committee we recognized after studying the rules for some time that we were dealing with traditions-
Rules of the House


John Arthur Clark: I would like a ruling on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. Just before your ruling is given I would suggest that the member is out of order either because he has moved an amendment which is not in your hands and which therefore is not before the committee, or because he is moving an amendment the principle of which has already been dealt with by this committee.


Thomas William Bird: If necessary I will withdraw
my amendment until I have finished my argument. With all the debate on this subject in the last few hours I think I should be allowed to continue with what I have to say. In many cases in committee we have had matters of a similar kind before us, matters in which I as a member of an independent group have been very much interested, and any representation I made in committee at any time was met with the greatest courtesy, as I think all recommendations should be met.


John Wesley Edwards: Is the hon.
member speaking inadvertently now?


Thomas William Bird: When I speak inadvertently I sometimes express much greater sense than the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), when he speaks with consideration. After all, Mr. Chairman, this is only in keeping with the spirit which should be maintained in a House of this kind, and it is the spirit in which our rules should be revised. What is the use of appointing a committee to revise the rules of the House if we are entirely to overlook and ignore the outstanding features of this parliament as it exists today? One of the most fruitful sources of disharmony in this House for the last five or six jrnars has been the existence of a third group. I do not object to the manner in which the rules have been applied in the past, because rules exist to be applied, but the necessary result of their application did not lead to the despatch of parliamentary work but rather to the contrary, and now that we are revising the rules why cannot we frankly face the fact that instead of two parties in this House we now have three or four? Surely if our object is to facilitate the business of the House we must so adapt out rules as to take into account all the factors which enter into that business, and I want to say that I do not know how this provision got into the rule. I must have been absent from the committee at the time, because I certainly would have been remiss in my duty had I let this go in without registering some objection. It is surely a very bold disregard of the presence of a third or fourth group in this House, that these words should be placed in such a rule, and I should think

the House could have no objection whatever to their removal. Concessions are made along these lines frequently and I think in the revision of these rules the existence of a third point of view in the House should be recognized. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect I would move the amendment, but perhaps before doing so I might say something else which has occurred to me. I listened very attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), and I think he was entirely sincere in the attitude he took. We have had sufficient incidents of a serious character in our parliamentary development to justify fully any member being on his guard against any restriction of the right of private members. Therefore I concede to the hon. member and others who feel the same way a real sincerity of motive, and I think only that the occasion was somewhat mistaken by them. Personally I think that unrestricted freedom of speech is not the defence of free speech, as we have often seen in the course of the last five or six years; It is rather an abuse of free speech. I know it is a regrettable thing that rules have to be invoked in order even apparently to restrict free speech. It surely was a regrettable thing when the action of Parnell and his associates compelled the invoking of the closure, it was a regrettable event in the otherwise free development of British parliamentary experience. I think this also is a somewhat regrettable step to take, but the step has been made necessary by the wholesale abuse of the right of speech in this House in the last few years. After all I think that a step of this kind, which apparently has the fairly unanimous backing of the House is just a matter of self defence on the part of the greater majority of parliamentarians. As a matter of fact the ones who transgress are the few. The ones who impose themr selves upon us in the name of free speech are only a very insignificant proportion of the total membership of the House, and why should we be willing quiescently to submit from time to time to the false imposition of these gentlemen? Why cannot we agree on some rule that will bring these men to time? We have no other way of doing it. If we do not do that we are defenceless. It reminds me of a story in parliamentary history. On one occasion a well know parliamentarian was listening to a very long and tiresome speech. He happened to see another member with an ear trumpet to his ear, and he said to his neighbour: "There is a man throwing away his natural advantages." Well, Mr. Chairman, we have not very many natural advantages in this House when it comes to

Rules oj the House
the overpowering eloquence of some of the members who think from time to time that they can safeguard the interests of the country and their constituencies only by talking hour after hour. I think I am as wholeheartedly in favour of free speech as the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, and I am only sorry that at this time we should seem to differ as to the best method of preserving what after all is the most precious inheritance of our parliamentary possessions. I wholeheartedly support the principle of this section, but in order to make it more in keeping with the actual facts in the House and to make it so that the proceedings here will henceforth be more harmonious and create a better spirit among the various parties, I move:
That the words "the leader of the opposition" in the first and second lines be deleted and the following words substituted: "leaders of opposition groups."


John Wesley Edwards: It is pretty nearly time we came to an understanding in regard to this matter of the opposition. We have given official recognition to the opposition by voting a salary to the opposition leader, and I would settle this question by providing that after the word "the" the sentence will read: "leader of the official opposition." There is an official opposition and that fact is recognized by voting him a salary.


Hugh Guthrie: The wording is "the recognized leader."


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, the
recognized leader of the official opposition.


Ernest Lapointe: The word "official" there is useless; it is not necessary.


John Wesley Edwards: Very well,
say "the recognized leader of the opposition."


Ernest Lapointe: I think it should be the "leader of the opposition."


John Wesley Edwards: I do not see why we should recognize one or two persons who call themselves a group or a political group. I am not very much moved by the appeal of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat in regard to groups, bearing in mind that he "inadvertently" voted against the very group that he belongs to.


Charles Marcil: I think it is only fair to
give an explanation of how the committee was guided in this matter. A strong appeal was made to us that an opportunity should be afforded the three parties in this House to express their views. Generally when the government brings down the budget the
official opposition moves an amendment, and from time immemorial only one amendment has been allowed on going into committee of supply. Now hon. members will find at the top of page 26 a new rule which provides for a subamendment. There is to be one amendment, and one subamendment,[DOT] which is designed to afford the members independent of the two large parties the opportunity of making known their views. The present situation in that regard had been a bone of contention for the last four or five years in parliament, and we had some trouble on one or two occasions as to which of thd two groups was to be the opposition. I think this concession to the independent members will furnish them with the opportunity of moving, before going into committee of supply, a subamendment in which their own views can be stated fully. This concession was accepted as a compromise by the members of the committee. It is a departure from the practice of the House, but the committee agreed to recognize to that extent the three existing parties.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was very much interested to-night in hearing the hon. leader of the United Farmers of Alberta group- I think that is what he is styled-claim that he was opposed to any opposition or recognized opposition. Then we hear the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) suggesting that the members in that corner are the opposition, and bringing in an amendment. What I want to know is just where these hon. members stand? Are they in opposition or what are they? This amendment would lead us to believe that the various groups ;n that corner are in opposition, and the hon. gentleman virtually says so in his amendment.


Thomas William Bird: It is well known that the term is applied to those members who do not sit on the government benches. There was no implication in the use of the word that we were anything like an official opposition.


John Vallance: You always refer to the members sitting in front of me-Mr. Neiil and Mr. Bourassa-as "independents." You have not included them. We want to know where this outfit stands.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. gentleman surely
is attributing to us motives that it is not proper to attribute to us at all. Because we sit on this side and sometimes express independent criticism does not imply that we are the only opposition. The hon. gentleman seems to want to put us-
137S
.	COMMONS
Civil Service.-Superannuation


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend
permit me? Can he tell us himself how many would be entitled to the longer speech if his amendment carries?


Thomas William Bird: For all practical purposes I
admit frankly that it might extend on occasions to three or four, but even at that I think the House could very well make a concession for the sake of good will. While I am on my feet I want to say something in regard to a remark passed by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). I do not wish to bring up anything that is past or dead, or that should be so regarded, but I do not intend to sit here calmly and listen to the insinuations that the hon. member for Frontenac has made on one or two oocasions respecting an action of mine. I think it would be becoming of him and his colleagues on that side of the House if they would let that incident drop. During the election he and others sitting on the front benches went out of their way to spread from one constituency to another statements that not one of them would dare to make on the floor of this House, that not one of them would be man enough to make to my face.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas William Bird: I think it is descending to a very low level of parliamentary practice for the hon. gentleman with his experience to stand up and make those base insinuations about the action of another member.


John Frederick Johnston: The remarks of the
hon. gentleman are not relevant to the matter which is before the committee.


Thomas William Bird: They may not be relevant, but I think as a member of this House-


John Wesley Edwards: I rise to
a point of order. Is it within the rules for an hon. member to accuse another of making base insinuations? I do not think it is.
I am sorry indeed if he or anyone else is accusing me of making insinuations. What I stated were facts. I do not bother wasting my time with making insinuations.


Thomas William Bird: It does not make the matter any different for the hon. member to use his subtlety of mind to get himself out of a situation which no self-respecting member would place himself in.


John Wesley Edwards: No self-respecting member would be guilty of the inadvertence which he committed.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I move a certain amendment to the amendment which I think will make the matter clear? I move:

That the new rule to be added after rule 21 be replaced by the paragraph:
.No speech delivered in the House of Commons shall be recorded in Hansard."


Ernest Lapointe: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 10.45 p,m.
Monday, March 21, 1927.