Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer certificate of the election and return of the following member, viz:
Of Allan G. McAvity, Esquire, for the electoral district of Saint John-Albert.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Allan G. McAvity, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Saint John-Albert, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. J. E. Michaud.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Who was the inspector for the government on the reconstruction of south pier, Burlington channel, during the year 1937?
2.	What was the amount of his remuneration for the said year?
3.	Is he paid by the month, week or day?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	William H. Caldwell.
2.	$1,356 (from January 1, 1937, to completion of contract, Septemper 22, 1937).
3.	Paid at the rate of 75 cents per hour.


POINTE DU CHENE, N.B., WHARF
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Was Mr. Thomas G. Gallant, of Barachois, parish of Shediac, Westmorland county. New Brunswick, construction foreman on public wharf at Pointe du Chene, Westmorland county, in the year 1937?
2.	If so, on what dates was Mr. Gallant
employed as such foreman, and what amount did he receive for his services?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) April 20 to 28 (8 days); May 1 to 21 (161 days); June 11 to 30 (16 days); July 1 to 15, and 19 to 31 (21J days); August 2, 3, 11 to 18, and 25 to 31 (15 days); September 1 to 17, and 20 to 29 (24 days); October 1 to 15 (12J days); November 4 to 13, 16, 17, 19 to 23, 25 and 29 (16 days), (b) $647.50.


TWEED, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Has the government acquired a site for a post office at Tweed, Ontario?
2.	If so, what is the location of such site, when was it acquired, from whom, and for what price ?


Mr. CARDIN:: Yes, under the authority of an order in council passed on January 5, 1938, a site located at the southeast corner of Victoria and Bridge streets was acquired from Mrs. James Quinn in exchange for another property which had been purchased for $2,500.


NATIONAL PORTS COMMISSION ENGINEER
Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	During the last year, what were the living and travelling expenses of Mr. Yuill, engineer of the national ports commission?
2.	How much of same were charged to the port of Three Rivers during the same period?
3.	What, if any, of his salary was charged to the port of Three Rivers during the same period ?


Mr. HOWE:: The following information is furnished by the National Harbours Board:
1.	$805.75-total.
2.	$354.15.
3.	None direct. Head office expenses are assessed proportionately against the several harbours under the jurisdiction of the board in accordance with the provisions of the National Harbours Board Act.


THREE RIVERS, QUE., PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER
Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to reopen in the city of Three Rivers the office of engineer of the Department of Public Works which was closed in 1937?
2.	Upon whose recommendation was said office closed ?
3.	To what point was the personnel of said office transferred?
4.	What became of the archives and records of this office after it was closed?
5.	Since said office was closed, under the jurisdiction of which public works engineer do the city of Three Rivers and surrounding district now fall?
Questions


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 


CANADIAN GOLD PRODUCTION, HOLDINGS
[Stage Direction]
1.	This office will be reopened if such action becomes necessary in the public interest.

Mr. POOLE:: 2.	The chief engineer and deputy minister of the Department of Public Works.
3.	To the district offices at Quebec and Montreal.
4.	Transferred to the district offices at Quebec and Montreal.
5.	The counties of Champlain and Lotbiniere and easterly thereof to the district office at Quebec, and westerly thereof to the district office at Montreal.


STE. ANGELE-DE-LAVAL-THREE RIVERS BRIDGE
Mr. GARIEPY:: Has the government obtained a report on the advisability and advantages of constructing a bridge over the St. Lawrence river, linking Ste. Angele-de-Laval with the city of Three Rivers ?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.
4.
Gold bullion other than monetary.. .. Gold-bearing quartz, dust and nuggets
(gold content)	
Gold coin	
Gold bullion, monetary	
5.
Gold bullion other than monetary-[DOT]
United Kingdom	
United States	
Gold-bearing quartz, dust and nuggets (gold content)
United Kingdom	
United States	
Belgium	
Germany	
Japan	
6.	For sale.


HEAVY DUTY SCALES
Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: 1.	How many heavy duty scales have been nspected in each province of Canada during ;he calendar year of 1937?
2.	How many of these scales were used for weighing grain in Canada?
3.	How many of such scales were used for weighing other heavy commodities in Canada?
4.	How many of each type of these scales have been rejected?
I Mr. Gariepy.]
1.	How much gold was mined in Canada in 1936 and 1937?
2.	Does the Central Bank possess the total gold of Canada?
3.	What is the note issue at present time on the basis of gold holdings?
4.	How much gold was exported?
5.	To where?
6.	For what purpose?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1. 1936,	3,748,028 fine ounces; 1937, 4.054,799	
fine ounces (preliminary figure).		
2. No.		
3. The :	Bank of Canada	Act requires that
the Bank	of Canada maintain a reserve in	
gold coin	and bullion of	not less than 25
per cent of its note and deposit liabilities. As		
at February 9, 1938, the Bank of Canada held		
gold coin	and bullion to the amount of	
S179,742,151.83, valued at the then world mar-		
ket price,	against a note	liability of $150.-798.900.03	and a deposit	liability of $223,-080.806.18.	1936	1937.. oz.	2,039,237	3,030,042. oz.	172.176	211,359. oz.	Nil	Nil. oz.	Nil	Nil. oz.	126,845	71,592. oz.	1,912,392	2,958,450. oz.	87	818. oz.	167,622	206,944. oz.	3,557	1,808. oz.	910	241. oz.	....	1,5485.	How many of each type of these scales were repaired or adjusted and then passed as correct ?6.	How many of each type were discarded and replaced by new ones?7.	How many of each type are still under lock?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Prior to April 1, 1937, statistics for heavy duty scales (6,000 lbs. up) were not segregated.

Questions
The figures for the first ten months of the	
present fiscal year, namely, April January 31, 1938, are as follows:-	1, 1937 to
	Total number of
	scales
Ontario		. 3,233
Quebec	 ...	. 1,220
New Brunswick		. 170
Nova Scotia		. 257
Prince Edward Island		. 52
Manitoba	 ..	. 1,837
Saskatchewan		. 6,041
Alberta	 ...	. 4,111
British Columbia		. 316
Total	
.	. 17,2372.	Grain-9,857. 3.	Others-7,380. 4.	Grain-1,487. Others-2,798. 5.	Grain-1,162. Others-2,025. 6.	No accurate information. 7.	Grain-5.	Others-127.	pensions ADVOCATES-PENSIONS TO	EX-SERVICE


Mr. POOLE:: 1.	How many pensions advocates in the veterans bureau of the Department of Pensions and National Health were engaged in service in the actual theatre of war?
2.	How many ex-service men are drawing 100 per cent or less pension who never served in the war?
3.	How many ex-service men are employed in the civil service of Canada, who are drawing a pension; what is the amount paid to each: what salaries are they receiving, and what position do they occupy?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Pensions advocates who served in France, 23; in England, 4; in Canada, 1; with no war service, 1.
2.	The answer to No. 2, as put, would be, nil. However, if the question means, as is indicated in No. 1, the number who served in the actual theatre of war, the distribution is as follows:
France	 69,917
England	 6,660
Canada	 2,750
Other theatres of war	 462
Total	 79,789
If the hon. member will look at the annual report of the Department of Pensions and National Health for the year ended March
31, 1937, page 59, tables 8 and 9, he will see a more complete distribution indicated, with the percentage of disability.
3.	In the past several years this question has arisen on several occasions, and the reply of the minister has invariably been in the sense of that given by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Caha.n), when he was Secretary of State. In 1934 the hon. member made this statement, referring to a similar question:
A year ago the hon. member made a similar inquiry and an order for return was made. It has been impossible during the year to obtain anything like a satisfactory return to that order, although to-day I have laid on the table of the house the best information we could obtain. During the present session I have laid on the table of the house sixteen portfolios containing the names of between 99,000 and
100,000	persons receiving pensions. To ascertain who of all those in the public service of Canada are receiving such pensions is impossible by mere comparison of names. It means that each department must send to every employee in the public service, permanent or temporary, to ascertain whether that person is one ol those 99,000 or 100,00 persons whose names are mentioned.
These figures cover dependent as well as disability pensioners. I would suggest, in view of this statement, and of similar statements made since that time, that this part of the question be dropped.


EXPERIMENTAL FARMS-ENTERTAINMENT ALLOWANCE
Mr. MacRAE:: 1.	Is an entertainment allowance given to the superintendents of the various experimental farms and stations?
2.	If so, how much?
3.	What amount was paid to the respective superintendents of each station in the year 1937?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No, but entertainment for official visitors on the basis of 75 cents per meal may be authorized.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


BRAMPTON, ONT., ARMOURIES
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What was the original cost of the armouries at Brampton, Ontario?
2.	What year was it built?
3.	Upon what dates was additional money spent on the said armouries?
4.	How much was spent on each of such dates ?
5.	Is the government considering any addition or extension of the said armouries this year?
Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1. $17,765.	
2. 1913-1914.	
3 and 4.	
1914			 $1,593
1915			 1,146
1920-21			 564
1921-22			 1,219
1922-23			 49
1925-26			 160
1926-27			 147
1927-28			 82
1934-35			 365
1936			 320
5. Yes. An addition is contemplated.


GRADING OF HOGS
Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	How many hog graders did the government employ in each of the years 1935, 1936, 1937?
2.	What salaries were paid to these hog graders?
3.	What was the total cost of hog grading in each year, 1935, 1936, 1937?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	39 in 1935; 41 in 1936; 41 in 1937.
2.	Senior swine grader, $2,520 to $2,760 per annum; Swine grader, $2,040 to $2,520 per annum; Junior swine grader, $1,620 to $2,160 per annum.
3.	$106,144.85 in 1935; $113,709.65 in 1936; $118,752.06 in 1937.


CHARTERS ISSUED TO MERCERS AND COMBINES
Mr. THOMPSON:: How many charters did the government issue to mergers and combines in each year from 1921 to 1937 inclusive?


Mr. RINFRET:: No charters have been issued under The Companies Act except for the purposes or objects and within the limits prescribed by the act. Every company incorporated under the Companies Act is subject, in the operation of its business, to the provisions of the criminal code relating to the restraint of trade, to the Combines Investigation Act, and to other statutes of Canada having general application. No letters patent have been issued to any company or corporation purporting to except it from the operation of laws relating to restraint of trade and combines.


GOVERNMENT LIGHTHOUSE TENDER &quot;ALBERNl&quot;
Mr NEILL:: 1.	When did the government lighthouse tender, Alberni, arrive on the British Columbia coast ?
[Mr. Graydon.l
2.	Since that date, how many times has she been in drydock?
3.	On what dates, what work was necessary on each occasion, and what did it cost?
4.	How many knots is its ordinary rate of travel?
5.	At such rate, what is its coal consumption in 24 hours of consecutive travel?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Victoria, B.C., January 18, 1937.
2.	Once.
3.	Dates: October 27, 1937, to November 2, 1937.
Docking, scraping, wire-brushing, hull painting, sea valves and cocks examined	$	550 00
Deck repairs and renewals.. 3,227 00
Machinery repairs and renewals 1,681 77


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. LAWSON:: As of January 31, 1938, how many employees has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation serving in:	(a) Ottawa; (b) Toronto; (c)
Montreal?


Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation who are paid salaries of $3,600 per annum or more?
2.	What are the salaries received by each of such above persons?


Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	How many employees: (a) full time; (b)
part	time,	had	the	Canadian	Broadcasting
Corporation on March 31, 1936?
2.	What was the aggregate salary of such employees ?
3.	How many employees: (a) full time; (b)
part	time,	had	the	Canadian	Broadcasting
Corporation on March 31, 1937?
4.	What was the aggregate of their salaries?
5.	How many employees: (a) full time; (b)
part	time,	had	the	Canadian	Broadcasting
Corporation on January 31, 1938?
6.	What was the aggregate of their salaries for the period April 1, 1937, to January 31, 1938, inclusive?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr.	Speaker,	these three
questions refer to matters connected with the internal management of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Corporation, and cannot be answered for reasons I stated a few days ago. May I add, however, that within a few days a committee of the house dealing with radio broadcasting will be functioning, and at that time these and any other questions will be answered by the management.

Questions as Orders for Returns


Walter Edward Foster: Questions 25, 26 and 27 dropped.


Mr. BENNETT:: It is only fair to point out that some of those employees are appointed by governor in council; that is what it amounts to.


VICTORIAVILLE, QUE., SEWER
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	Has the government or any of its departments contributed to the construction of a main sewer in the city of Victoriaville, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what respective portion is to be paid by the federal government, the provincial government and the municipality?
3.	How many persons worked on such construction, what are their names and addresses, and how much did each receive per day?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under the provisions of The Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, the dominion contributed 83,750 towards the construction of "aqueduct, sewers and bridge" in Victoriaville, the province of Quebec contributing a like amount, the municipality contributing 87,500.
Under the provisions of The Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, the dominion contributed $8,000 towards the "construction of sewers on Notre Dame, Albert and Saint Joseph Streets," the province of Quebec contributing a like amount.
3.	The works referred to in 2 above having been carried out under the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities, the names and addresses of the persons employed thereon and their earnings are not matters of record with the dominion government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government received any correspondence from the government of Ontario, or any other persons in reference to the construction or reconstruction of new bridges across the Niagara river, or in reference to the observation bridge that was destroyed?
2.	If so, will the government lay all the papers on the table of the house?
3.	In future, will consideration be given to the idea of having all bridges across international streams like the Niagara or St. Lawrence in Ontario, erected, controlled and owned by the joint governments of Ontario and New York, under public ownership, so
as to prevent a monopoly and excessive charges to the public, as set out in the debates of the house, in past years, on private bills for bridges across the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers, and one at Sarnia?
4.	Has any correspondence been received from the government of Ontario, or from others in reference to parts of the bridges which were destroyed floating down the river, and will the same be removed in view of their becoming a menace to navigation between Queenston and Niagara where large lake steamers navigate?
5.	If so, will the correspondence be tabled?


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Under immediate, direct and exclusive control of the civil service commission and as an integral part of its organization, is there an independent body of examiners whose exclusive duties consist of determining merits of candidates to civil service positions?
2.	If so, what are the names and salaries of the members of such independent body of examiners?
3.	How long has the civil service commission been operating?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. PERLEY:: For a return showing,-
1.	The quantities of cheese, beans, fish, fruit, vegetables, hay, fodder, feed and seed grains and other products, purchased directly or indirectly and shipped by the government into Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba for relief purposes, between the first of July, 1937, and the present date.
2.	The names, addresses, occupations or business of persons, firms and corporations from whom such goods were purchased, with the quantities and value of such purchases from each person, persons, firm or corporation, showing prices paid and the points of delivery to the government and points of distribution in the said provinces.
3.	The total purchase price of such material.
4.	The amount paid for freight on each class of goods.
5.	The total cost of storage and handling at points of shipment.
6.	The total cost of handling and storage at destination.
7.	Cost of reshipment, including handling and freight from first destination in Saskatchewan to final destination.
8.	Names, addresses and amounts paid to all
persons engaged in:	(a) dividing up and reparcelling each class of said goods; (b) distributing such goods; (c) warehousing.
9.	Total amount paid for demurrage, and to whom.
10.	The final points of shipment from which such goods were distributed.
11.	The area described by municipalities or otherwise, within which such goods were distributed.
Motions for Papers

12.	If such goods were distributed to those on relief only, or to the population in general.
13.	The total cost of such shipment.
14.	From what vote this money was paid.
15.	The amount obtained by governor general's warrants for the purpose of providing for the costs of this distribution.
16.	What amount of each class of such goods was produced in Saskatchewan in the year 1937.
17.	What amount of each class of such goods was imported into Saskatchewan from other provinces of the dominion, and from outside Canada, in the year 1937.
18.	The part the government played in the distribution of free goods contributed by persons, firms and corporations, to Saskatchewan, and the quantities of such goods handled or distributed by the government or any official thereof.
19.	The points in Saskatchewan where final distribution of such contributed goods was made.
20.	The instructions given officials of the dominion government in Saskatchewan rvith respect to the distribution of: (a) goods purchased and supplied by the dominion government; (b) goods supplied by voluntary contribution.


Mr. GARDINER:: I notice that this motion came up when I was absent from the house a few days ago, and that the Prime Minister asked to have it stand until my return. I wish to say only that much of the information asked for would have to be secured from another government, namely the government of Saskatchewan. I could undertake to provide all the information for which my own department is responsible, and to obtain all other information that possibly can be secured, within the period of the session. If there is any carried over until after that time, I shall have to bring it down another year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It covers only the government shipments.


James Garfield Gardiner: It covers much more than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No-"shipped by the government into Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba." That is the essential part of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: But that information has to be secured from the other provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. This question covers lirect purchases to which the minister referred the other night, made by the dominion government, and shipped to the province of Saskatchewan, payments for which will appear in the auditor general's report for next year.


James Garfield Gardiner: If it does refer only to that, then it is much simpler to answer. But the wording is, "the quantities of cheese,

beans, fish, fruit, vegetables, hay, fodder, feed and seed grains and other products purchased directly or indirectly"-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: -"and shipped by the government into Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba for relief purposes, between the 1st of July, 1937 and the present date." If the term "indirectly" does not mean what was paid for by this government, but ordered by other governments, then it can be answered 6imply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MASSEY (for Mr. Betts):: For a return showing, all refunds, rebates or remissions, on account of direct or indirect taxation of any kind, made by the Department of National Revenue since November 1, 1935, and in each case the amount involved, the person to whom such amount was paid, and the agent acting on his behalf.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked that the motion stand so that I could look into the matter more fully. I find that from time to time similar motions have been made in the house, and that the information has always been refused, on the ground that it was disclosing the business of individual concerns. I have before me the record of twenty-five motions involving the same principle as the present one. and the same answer has been given by the ministers of various governments.
But in this particular instance there is another reason why it would be undesirable to pass the motion, and that is the volume of work. I should like to say a word on that point. The volume of work, the great expense involved and the length of time required in compiling and tabulating the information requested, will be apparent when it is pointed out that the return would include approximately 80,000 individual payments of drawbacks and refunds annually, the vast majority of which were paid under statutory authority, the amounts and authority for payment being verified in each case by the auditor general's office.
For example, during the fiscal year 1936-37, 60,861 customs refund claims, 11,241 excise tax refund claims, 505 excise duty refund claims, 5,516 customs-excise drawback claims, and 520 refunds or remissions by order in council were dealt with, to say nothing of the many hundreds of refunds of deposits, etc., made direct by collectors at the ports, details of which could be obtained only by circularizing

British Columbia Fishing Industry
the collectors from coast to coast. It would obviously take several months to search each claim and obtain from it and compile the special details requested, and, as this work could not be done without seriously disrupting regular work, additional assistance would have to be obtained. If such a return could be completed, the voluminous compilation would consist of more than 2,500 pages.
I would ask that the motion be dropped.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it may be said to be answered, rather than dropped.


Walter Edward Foster: Stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is answered.


Walter Edward Foster: Answered.



OLD AGE PENSIONS-DRUM MOND-ARTIIABAS KA

Mr. GIROUARD:: For a return showing the names, addresses, occupations of all persons residing in the electoral district of Drummond-Arthabaska who are receiving a pension under the Old Age Pension Act, and showing the amount of the pension received by each such person.


Mr. DUNNING:: I must ask the hon. member to consent to allow this motion to be dropped, in view of what is involved in it. The lists of old age pensioners are the property of each province. Under the arrangements between the federal government and the government of each province, the province, in pursuance of its constitutional authority in that regard, first awards the pension, pays it and then submits to the federal government for audit purposes the necessary documentary proofs of having paid it in accordance with the agreement. I shall not labour the point as to whether we have the right to table in this house information which is the property of a province and which is submitted to us purely for audit purposes. Aside from that, I would point out that at the present time *there are approximately 175,000 old age pensioners in Canada and if we were to accept a motion such as is now before the house it would involve the possibility, nay I might say the probability, of having to reproduce a list of 175,000 names, addresses and occupations, and thus make public for the first time the names of those who are in receipt of old age pensions. Until now that information has been regarded by the provinces and by the dominion as private and of a character which should not be made public in the manner suggested.
I would urge also the amount of work involved. It would be easier to meet my hon. friend's request if the information came to us by constituencies, but unfortunately it
does not. The provincial lists are made up in numerical order by order of application, so that in order to extract the names requested by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard) it would be necessary to go through a list of some 45,000 old age pensioners in Quebec to obtain the addresses in order to find out what individuals lived in Drummond-Arthabaska. I am quite sure my hon. friend would not desire that this amount of work should be done in order to produce such a list.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just to correct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), in Ontario, where the county councils paid a portion of the money, lists of those who received money in the county were available.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not sure that it is so to-day. Certainly not in Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that they still pay ten per cent. You will remember the question came up at one time for consideration and it was contended that where anything involved the payment out of moneys, we were entitled to have the evidence of it here.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.



BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHING INDUSTRY


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved:: Whereas a commission was appointed in 1922 to examine and report on all matters connected with the fishing industry of British Columbia;
And whereas amongst other findings they recommended that steps be taken to eliminate the Japanese fishermen so as to safeguard the fishing industry for white Canadian fishermen;
And whereas steps were taken in 1923 by the dominion government to implement this recommendation by the reduction of fishing licences issued annually to Japanese fishermen.
And whereas this curtailment of fishing licences to Japanese fishermen was only carried out until 1927 when no further steps were taken to safeguard the industry for white Canadian fishermen,
Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion of this house, as the fishing industry in British Columbia is still to-day largely in tile hands of Japanese fishermen, and particularly in the Fraser river area, all fishing licences issued to Japanese, or those of Japanese origin, be reduced by not less than 40 per cent during the present year and by 15 per cent in each year following, and continued until such time as the recommendation made by the royal commission is carried out and the fishing industry of British Columbia in the hands of white Canadian fishermen.

British Columbia Fishing Industry
He said:	Mr. Speaker, most of the remarks that might be made in connection with this resolution and with particular reference to the orientals in British Columbia were made the other evening by myself and other hon. members who spoke on the bill introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), hence it will not be necessary for me to cover again the same ground.
The purpose of the resolution is stated briefly in the last clause which reads:
Therefore be it resolved,-that, in the opinion of this house, as the fishing industry in British Columbia is still to-day largely in the hands of Japanese fishermen, and particularly in the Fraser river area, all fishing licences issued to Japanese, or those of Japanese origin, be reduced by not less than 40 per cent during the present year and by 15 per cent in each year following, and continued until such time as the recommendation made by the royal commission is carried out and the fishing industry of British Columbia in the hands of white Canadian fishermen.
This resolution does not suggest the adoption of a new policy. Back in 1919 the Department of Fisheries inaugurated a policy for the reduction of fishing licences to those of oriental origin. I should like to quote a statement by Mr. Found, the deputy minister of fisheries, made before the fisheries committee of 1926, and explaining this polity. He stated this policy very succinctly when he was asked to do so by the fisheries committee of 1926. He said: '
Speaking subject to correction, the situation is easily understood. For a good many years the feeling on the Pacific coast as to those who are engaged in the industry was a growing one, in one direction; after the war it became quite concrete. In 1919 it was decided that the time had come when a definite policy looking to the time when only white British subjects and Indians engaged in the industry could be brought about.
The orientals entered the fishing industry of British Columbia during the war years and have remained there ever since. In 1920-21 a total of 4,143 fishing licences were issued to persons of oriental origin. Because of pres-rure brought to bear by the people of British Columbia it was felt that something had to be done about the matter, and the department attempted to do something, according to the statement of Mr. Found which I have just quoted. It was felt that it would not do to disrupt the industry by eliminating them all at one time; hence a policy of gradual elimination was adopted.
In 1922 parliament appointed a royal commission composed of members of this house who were instructed to go to the Pacific coast to investigate all matters connected with the fishing industry. One of the matters investigated when they were

there on the coast was that of fishing licences issued to persons of oriental origin. So serious did they consider this matter that when they returned they reported, not a fifteen per cent reduction in any year but an initial reduction of forty per cent. That the commission had in mind the policy adopted in 1919 by the Department of Fisheries is evidenced by words uttered in the house by one of the members of that commission. Mr. Martell, the then member for Hants, is reported on page 1555 of Hansard of March 27, 1923, as follows:
I do not believe that I am giving away any secret of the commission when I say that the idea of the majority was not only a reduction of 40 per cent but that there should be such a 40 per cent reduction at the outset, and a sufficient reduction from year to year looking to the total exclusion of Asiatics from the British Columbia fisheries within a period of five years.
The suggested reduction of forty per cent was adopted by the Department of Fisheries. From year to year the department looked for guidance to the fisheries committee, but as the committee did not meet in 1924 no reduction was made that year. In 1925 a fifteen per cent reduction was put into effect. In 1926 the members of the fisheries committee again investigated this matter, because the department wanted guidance as to what percentage of reduction should be put into effect each year. I should like to read to the house the motion moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni before the committee in 1926. It reads:
That the committee confirm the policy adopted by the department some years ago looking to the restriction of salmon and cod fishing licences on the Pacific coast to white men and native Indians and recommend that the licences issued in 1927 to others than white men and native Indians be reduced by ten per cent of the number issued in 1926; and in each future year the number of such licences be reduced by ten per cent of the number issued in 1926, until these licences will be issued entirely to white men and native Indians within ten years.
The committee of 1926, sitting here in Ottawa, not only endorsed the department's policy of 1919 but recommended a ten per cent reduction in the number of fishing licences issued to orientals each year until such time as the industry would once again be in the hands of white Canadians. In 1927 a further reduction of ten per cent took place, but at that time the Japanese in British Columbia contested the right of the department to discriminate and refuse them licences, and they took the question to the courts. It went through the courts until finally it reached the privy council, the privy council deciding in favour of the Japanese. But I want the house to note the reasons given by

British Columbia Fishing Industry
the privy council for deciding in favour of the Japanese. On looking into the question the privy council found that this parliament had not given to the Minister of Fisheries the right to discriminate. It was not that the privy council disputed at all the right of parliament so to do, but they found that parliament had not given that right to the Minister of Fisheries, and so he was prohibited until 1929 when the Fisheries Act was amended and that right given to the minister. I hold a copy of the act in my hand, and I shall read that particular clause:
The minister may, in his absolute discretion wherever the exclusive right of fishing does not already exist by law, issue or authorize to be issued fishery leases and licences for fisheries and fishing wheresoever situate or carried on.
That, it was expected, would enable the department to carry out their policy and continue with the reduction of fishing licences issued to those of oriental origin. However, no further reductions were made in the number of fishing licences issued to orientals in 1929, but that by the way is rather a long story which I shall not take time to go into now. But I want the house to note this, that if the policy of the department had been carried out, as was intended, right through all those years, there would not be to-day one oriental in the fishing industry in British Columbia, and consequently we would not now be facing this trouble.
The house might be interested in a few statistics dealing with licences before I proceed to some of the salient points I have to place before it. In 1927 the total number of fishing licences issued in British Columbia to those of oriental origin was 1,990. In 1937. although the policy of reduction had then been in effect for many years, there were issued 2.608 licences, or 618 more than were issued ten years earlier, in 1927.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, some may argue that the Japanese are in this country, that many of them were born here, and it may be asked. What are you going to do with them? At this point let me say that this licensing question is a more serious problem than the closing of our gates to the Japanese. I am in favour of closing our gates to the Japanese, but the most serious problem arising out of the question I am discussing is, What are we going to do with the orientals who are already in Canada? If I have time I shall develop that a little later. It was contended during many years, and still is by some people, that if the Japanese are forced out of the fishing industry they will go into farming and other industries. That is an old argument. When it was used a number of years ago, it was thought that if the Japanese were forced
out of fishing they would go into farming, and that that industry would become overcrowded; but although we have continued to issue fishing licences to Japanese to the numbers I have mentioned, that has not prevented them from going into farming and many other industries. It is well known to the Fraser Valley, for example, that the Japanese control many lines of agriculture there, and that they are invading timbering and other industries as well.
I want particularly, however, to deal with the Fraser river district, which I have the honour to represent in this house. First of all let me explain that on the Fraser river all commercial fishing is done by means of the gill net, unlike other fishing on the open waters of the Pacific, which is done by trawling or by seines. But on the Fraser river, as I say, commercial fishing is done almost entirely by gill net.
In 1922 the department issued a total of 870 gill net fishing licences to those of oriental origin, and in the same year only 390 to white Canadians. When the reduction of forty per cent was put into effect in 1923, that number of 870 was reduced to 522 licences to Japanese fishermen, and the fifteen per cent reduction in 1925 brought the number down to 470. The ten per cent reduction in 1927, the last year of the reductions, reduced the number of gill net licences issued to orientals to 425, and since that time the Department of Fisheries has endeavoured to keep the number running between 410 and 450. But the number of 425, of gill net licences issued, does not by any means begin to paint a true picture of what is actually taking place on the Fraser river to-day. Let me at this point explain, because I am now going to deal with another form of licence that is issued, namely, "assistant gill net" fishing licence. Licences to assistants were issued years ago when fishing was done by rowboat and sailboat because it was very difficult then for one man to set the net and handle the oars or the sail at the same time; but since then the gas boat has superseded the rowboat and sailboat, gill net fishing has been carried on by means of the gas boat, operated generally by one man. It can be successfully carried on by one man operating a gas boat. The Japanese, however, and others of oriental origin, were very soon able to see what could be done by the added use of assistant gill net licences, and so year by year they have been obtaining not only gill net licences, but assistant gill net licences as well. Last year they obtained not only 425 gill net licences, but in addition 376 assistant gill net licences, making a total of 801 licences issued to them.

British Columbia Fishing Industry
The question may be asked, Why does the white fisherman not take out an assistant gill net licence and compete with these orientals? There are many reasons why he does not. First of all, the white man can operate the boat himself; and so could the Jap if he wanted to. Second, with the meagre returns he receives-the white man, with his standard of living, cannot afford to compete with the Japanese if he has to split any returns in two and pay an assistant. For the information of the house I might point out that most of the Japanese fishermen at the mouth of the Fraser river are living in shacks at a place called Steveston, and if any members were to pass along there they would wonder whether they were in Canada or Japan. When we come to the point of asking our Canadian fishermen to get down to the standard of living exhibited around these shacks on the waterfront at Steveston, it will be a very sorry day indeed for our people. Our white Canadian fishermen mostly own their own homes and have taxes to pay, etc. There is also this, that with only one man in the boat, the white fisherman cannot operate twenty-four hours a day, like the Japanese who. with two men on each boat, are operating their boats night and day. The fishery guardian comes along and sees a Jap aboard his boat. The Japanese all look alike to him. He is not sure whether that man has a gill net licence or only an assistant licence, and you would need a hundred official guardians to check this up; but a white man could be spotted if he tried any of these tricks and he would be punished very soon.
In 1923 the total of all types of fishing licences issued in British Columbia was 2,486. That was the year when the forty per cent reduction was put into effect. In 1937 there was a total of 2,608. Instead of a policy of reduction being carried out, these licences have increased by 122 during the past few years. On the Fraser in 1923 there were 522 gill-net fishing licences issued to Japanese, whereas in 1937 they have, with the assistants' licences, a total of 841. This number includes a few other types of licences but a total of 319 more licences were issued in the year 1937 than were issued in 1923, or an increase of exactly seventy per cent. So that if the resolution before the house were adopted and carried out, it would still leave them 505 fishing licences in the Fraser river area as against 522 in 1923; and, if the reduction were extender! to every kind of fishing licence in the province, the total would be 1,304 as against 1,990 ten years ago. Surely no great cry of "injustice" could arise, because, as has been already

pointed out, had the policy of reduction been carried into effect there would now be none of these people in the fishing industry in British Columbia, whereas last year their total numbers were 2,608. The assistant gill-net fishing licences have been of tremendous value to those of oriental origin, and they have taken advantage of these licences to increase their returns; not only that, but their boats are so numerous and in such constant use around the mouth of the Fraser river that it is a miracle that any salmon or other fish ever pass the great numbers of nets in operation there.
This resolution has not been introduced in any spirit of hatred or animosity. The same cannot be said of the Japanese attitude, since, because I took a strong part in opposing giving them the vote, last year they announced through their newspapers in Japan that I was number one bad man in Canada against them. The fact that they did this has no bearing on the resolution now before the house; I want to make that plain. My concern is for our own people, and I offer an apology to no one for putting up a fight on behalf of the white Canadian.
I shall now proceed to describe very briefly the Fraser river, so that the situation there will be more clearly understood. There are two areas in the Fraser, one above the New Westminster bridge, the other below it. The licences issued to those above the bridge are given principally only to persons who own property. Generally speaking, about 1S6 licences are issued to those above the bridge and 1,250 to those below. Hence it is with the lower reaches of the Fraser, the mouth of the river that I am particularly concerned, for it is there that I see grave danger to our fishing industry as a whole. These people are all at the mouth of the river; they are operating their boats from the town of Steveston to the mouth, and the house will realize just how serious this matter is when I point out that to-day it is almost as much as a white Canadian's life is worth to attempt to fish in the area between Steveston and the mouth of the river. Let me cite one incident which occurred last year when a white Canadian endeavoured to do so. Those of Japanese origin jumped on his boat, put his engine out of commission, cut his net, and assaulted him greviously. Are we in this country going to stand for that kind of thing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were they punished?


Thomas Reid: No, unfortunately they were not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


Thomas Reid: They should have been, but the difficulty was that they all look more or less alike and it proved impossible to identify

British Columbia Fishing Industry
them. Moreover, there are so many hideouts in that neighbourhood that it is almost impossible to find one of these men when he is fleeing from justice.
As I have said, this is not an international question. But when we attempt to fish in one of our own Canadian rivers and must do so in peril of our lives because persons of another nationality have appropriated it to themselves and say that none but their own nationality shall fish there, it is high time that something was done about it. That is my chief reason for bringing this matter before the house at this time. Those of Japanese origin have themselves to blame if there is any ill feeling against them in British Columbia. They have not shown by their methods that they are truly Canadians; my own view is that they are truly Japanese first, hence my great opposition to allowing them the franchise. It is strange, if they really are British subjects as they claim to be, that when they get into trouble they do not make any appeal for help to Canadian governments, provincial or federal. Oh, no; their application or appeal is made immediately to Japan, as was evidenced a few years ago when trouble arose at Rivers Inlet between Japanese and white fishermen. The Japanese threatened then to make it an international question, and appealed, not to the dominion or provincial government, but to their own Japanese government. As a matter of fact, according to my information, Japan to-day counts these fishermen in her numbers. It is not generally known that Japan has close to one and a half million men engaged in the fishing industry, and that she counts in that number fishermen operating in British Columbia and other territories outside the Japanese empire. It is my personal belief that this is in conformity with a studied policy, because the Japanese, as is well known, have fished out their own waters and are appropriating where they can, waters and areas belonging to others.
I now draw to the attention of the house, because I think it very serious and pertinent to my resolution, the number of captains' licences issued on the Pacific coast to those of oriental origin. Last year these people obtained 110 seine boat captains' licences as against seventy granted to white Canadians. As regards masters' certificates, sixty-one were issued to them out of a total of 191. I commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) for writing across the certificates issued to those of oriental origin that their boats were to be used only for the conveyance of fish; but when the shipping act was changed there was an immediate rush of those of Japanese origin to obtain these masters' certificates as
captains of boats. My view is that this also is in accordance with a studied policy. It is also well known that many of these men are ex-naval men; and, as was pointed out the other evening by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), one has only to 6ee the great numbers of boats used by them on the Pacific coast to realize how serious the whole matter really is, and that it may become more serious in the very near future.
May I now briefly sum up the chief reasons for bringing this resolution before the house at this time and for desiring to see a reduction in the number of fishing licences issued to those of oriental origin. In the first place, these people absolutely control the cod industry of British Columbia. No wholesaler or retail merchant in that province can buy codfish to-day except through the Japanese, and if they say, "No," that is all there is about it. The merchants simply cannot procure codfish if the Japanese refuse. If I had time to go into the figures with regard to the codfish industry I could discuss a few other matters, but there are other things which T wish to take up now. In the second place, the Japanese control ninety per cent of the export of salt fish from British Columbia, and I would point out that a very serious international question might have been raised when Japan first went into Manchukuo, because the Chinese were so incensed at Japanese activities that they refused to buy salt fish exported from British Columbia because it was put up and shipped by the Japanese. We lost our trade in salt fish during those years owing to that fact, and when a Chinaman starts out to boycott he really does boycott; for he certainly has no love for the Japanese. In the third place, the Japanese are now in a position to dictate and actually do dictate to many of the canners. telling them what quantity of fish they will get each morning. A canner may be all set with his crew of men to can ten or fifteen or twenty thousand fish for the day; but the Japanese boss comes along and says, "I am sorry but we are going to let you have only so much fish."
This is Canada, Mr. Speaker; this is not the orient; and yet in the Fraser river we find a man who is in charge of the Japanese association going around and telling the canners the quantity of fish they will get each day. But most serious of all, of course, is the control of the mouth of the Fraser river by the Japanese or those of Japanese origin, and when there is any trouble they appeal immediately, not to Canada, but to Japan. When there is any case of assault in this country are we going to be obliged to appeal to Japan and say, "Would you mind telling your na-



British Columbia Fishing Industry
tionals in Canada to leave our nationals alone when they are in our own Canadian waters?" Is that to be the situation here? Surely not. It is bad enough now, and something more will have to be done about it than has been done. During the past few years, as I have pointed out, the Japanese in British Columbia are themselves making it most difficult for us to believe that they are truly Canadian. I wonder what would happen to Canadians if they were in Japan and attempted to do what is actually being done by Japanese in British Columbia. After listening to the remarks made the other evening, particularly by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), one cannot but realize the gravity of the international situation to-day, and how careful one must be in any remarks to see that they may not be interpreted as an insult to any one nation. I have tried, therefore, in what I have said to follow that advice. In fact, I could have said a great deal more than I have. For the information of hon. members, I may say that since coming to Ottawa and since my resolution has appeared on the order paper I have conferred with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) and his officials in connection with this trouble, and I understand that the entire situation will be investigated and the conditions which I have just outlined looked into seriously, and I believe that there is power in the Fisheries Act to enable the minister to do something.
With the assurance that something is going to be done or that the matter is going to be seriously looked into, it will not be necessary for me at this time to press the motion to a vote of the house. However, in closing, I urge upon the government and all hon. members the gravity of the fishery situation in British Columbia, and I trust that some action will be taken along the lines suggested in the resolution. If nothing is done now, the matter may well get out of hand, and that before very long.
On motion of Mr. Pottier the debate was adjourned.



RULES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South) moved:: That a special committee be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the advisability of revising the rules of the house.
He said: I would wish at the outset of my brief remarks to make clear that whatever I may have to say of criticism is a criticism

of methods and procedure in this house and is not a reflection on the present or the previous government; it is rather a criticism of government practice, and of goverments as they come and go.
There is widespread criticism of the cost of government, but so far as the sessions of parliament are concerned the electors do not complain so much about the cost of sessions as they do of the machinery of government operating wastefully throughout the years. For those outside the house who may not know, let me say that all speeches in parliament are taken down in shorthand and printed in two languages every day in a volume known as Hansard. It has come to be considered that to some extent a member's representation of his riding is measured by the amount of printed space recorded to his credit in Hansard; and so, to show his electors that he is here, it sometimes becomes necessary for a member to speak when the business of the country would be facilitated by his remaining silent. As a matter of fact many members choose to speak but little, and to work in committee and in many ways behind the scenes.
There is a similar recording of speeches at Washington in the Congressional Record. There they have the practice also of inserting in the Congressional Record speeches not actually delivered on the floor. This is done within limitations to afford members of congress an opportunity of expressing their attitude on public questions without unnecessarily taking up the time of the house.
During recent weeks I have been endeavouring to analyse our procedure in this House of Commons with a view to seeing whether some changes in the rules might not make us more businesslike in our routine methods. I have been searching to see if somehow it might be possible to get away from frustrations, to come to grips in this house with problems, barely touched, that affect the life and prosperity and happiness of the people of Canada. My research work in the first two sessions prompted me to speak last session on " estimates and cost of government." I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on the more understandable form in which the estimates are presented this year. I appreciate his generosity in saying that I might take some of the credit. There is much to be done yet before we shall have a clear picture of the need for and total cost of many expenditures. I defy the minister or any hon. member on behalf of any former minister of finance to work out from the records ordinarily available to parliament a profit and loss statement for the Rideau canal or similarly to give us the

Rules oj the Home
cost of Hansard. The committee I am to-day-suggesting ought to follow through on this matter of consideration of estimates. Efforts should be made to effect economies in building and construction projects.
The sessions of committee of supplj' are most tedious. One wonders whether a better way of checking expenditures cannot be devised. The resolution I have proposed asks for a special committee to consider with Mr. Speaker the advisability of revising the rules of the house. Since the rules were first drafted, on December 20, 1867, they have been amended on two occasions, namely July 10, 1906, and March 22, 1927. There is a widespread feeling to-day amongst the members that the time is overdue for another revision. Members are irked by the restraining handicaps in the conduct of public business as compared to modern methods followed in competitive private business. For instance during recent years the method of handling groceries has undergone a tremendous change, affecting corner stores as well as larger centrally located stores. It surely is reasonable for parliament to ask that an opportunity be given to study methods of making its procedure more businesslike and more efficient. It is not my intention to go extensively into details or to make definite recommendations;
I am asking only that the study be made. The need is generally admitted. Most hon. members could give several reasons; I shall enumerate only a few.
One is that the acoustics of the chamber render it difficult for hon. members from their assigned places to hear the debates. I am not suggesting a shuffle of sittings, but to show that this problem is relevant let me quote from the rules of the British House of Commons:
81.	No member's name shall be affixed to any seat in the house for the hour of prayers; and Mr. Speaker shall give directions to the doorkeepers accordingly.
82.	Any member having secured a seat at prayers shall be entitled to retain the same until the rising of the house.
And from the legislative assembly in Victoria, Australia:
27. A member may be permitted to secure a place in the assembly chamber by leaving a book, hat or glove upon it, before motions are called.
I may say in passing that there are 615 members in the British parliament and seating for 450. Here we have 245 members and seating for 297. I think some consideration should be given to the oft-repeated requests of hon. members for the improvement of the acoustics of this chamber.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
51952-47i


Robert William Gladstone: Second, the length of speeches is a matter that some wish to have considered with a view to curtailment. Earlier in my remarks I referred to the mistaken belief on the part of some electors that their member is not doing effective work here unless occasionally he can send out copies of Hansard containing a speech he has made. Such speeches must have length in order to be impressive. The time limit in any debate for private members is forty minutes. In the British parliament I believe there is no time limit, neither is there a compulsory attendance rule, and many members of the British parliament seldom attend unless on an urgent call for an important vote, such as want of confidence. The permissible time length of speeches varies throughout other parts of the empire and in the United States from no limit to five minutes on specified matters.
Standing orders of the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia indicate that Australia has adopted a graduated scale governing length of speeches. I shall read Australian rule No. 257A, adopted July 17, 1912, and amendment 257B adopted April 23,' 1931, as recorded on pages 70, 71 and 72 of their standing orders:
257A. No member shall speak for more than one hour and five minutes at a time in any debate in the house, except in the debate on the address in reply, or in a debate on a motion ot no confidence," or in moving the second reading of a bill, or on the debate on the appropriation bill or on the financial statement m committee when a member shall be at liberty to speak for one hour and thirty-five minutes. In committee of the house no member shall speak for more than thirty minutes at any one time, or more than twice on any 0,1 e question before the committee: Provided that this rule shall not apply in committee to a member in charge of a bill, or to a minister when delivering the financial statement, or to any member during the proceedings in the committee on the tariff, or, in regard to the number of his speeches, to a minister in charge of a class of estimates in committee of supply.
257B. Notwithstanding anything contained in these standing orders-
(a) the maximum period for which a member may speak on any subject indicated in this standing order, and the maximum period for any debate, shall not, unless otherwise ordered exceed the period specified opposite to that subject in the following schedule:
Subject	Time
In the House:
Address in reply-
Each member	 35 minutes
Motion for adjournment to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance (under standing order No. 38) -
Moyer	
20	minutesMinister first speaking	
20	minutesAny other member	
10	minutes
Rules of the House

Subject	Time
In the Houses-Concluded
Motion for adjournment of house to close the business of the day-	,,
Each member	 lo minutes
Want of confidence motion-	.
Mover	 60 minutes
Minister first speaking	 60 minutes
Any other member	 35	minutes
Limitation of debate-motion for allotment of time (under standing order No. 262A)-	,
Whole debate	
30	minutesEach member	
3	minutesSecond reading of a bill-	.
60	minutes
Leader of opposition or member deputed by him speaking
first to such motion	
60	minutesAny other member	
45	minutes
Debates not otherwise provided
Mover of a motion	
45	minutesAny other member	
35	minutes
In Committee:
Member in charge of a bill.. ..(periods not
specified)
Limitation of debate-motion for allotment of time (under standing order No. 262A) -
Whole debate	 30 minutes
Each member	 5 minutes
Financial statement or tariff-
General debate-	,
Minister in charge	(periods	not
specified)
Leader of opposition or member deputed by him speaking
first	 60 minutes
Any other member	 45 minutes
Each question before the chair on the estimates or on a tariff-
Minister in charge	(periods	not
specified)
Each member other than a minister in charge-two periods
each not exceeding	 30	minutes
Debates not otherwise provided for-	.
Each member - two periods
each not exceeding	 15	minutes
In the House or in Committee:
Extension of time-with the consent of a majority of the house or of the committee, to be determined without debate, a member may be allowed to continue his speech for periods _ each not exceeding	 15	minutes
(b) a debate on a motion under standing order No. 38, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance may be continued for a period of two hours.
Third: Another matter to be kept in mind is the health of the members, particularly ministers, leaders, and others who must carry a very heavy load of responsibility throughout the session. Suggestions have been made to limit speeches to thirty minutes or to

twenty minutes, to abolish debate on the address in reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor General, to abolish Hansard when the house is in committee of the whole, to adjourn at 10 p.m. instead of 11 p.m., to sit only in the afternoon, and so on. Ministers and many hon. members are in their offices and the house fourteen hours daily for five days in the week, with the exception of Wednesday, when the house adjourns at 6 p.m. instead of 11 p.m. If that is carried on for four or five months, with a few breaks for social affairs or recreation, efficiency must be undermined.
Fourth: This point has to do with the rights of private members. Here let me repeat my earlier assurance that my comments are intended to apply to parliamentary practice based on present rules, as last revised on March 22, 1927, and which have since governed all parliaments. It cannot be denied that private members weary under the restraints and frustrations imposed by the rules. It is not surprising that we sometimes wonder just where we stand with respect to responsible government and parliamentary control. Looking over any years where there may have been autocracy in cabinets, we may be fearsome at times of a swing of the pendulum, even in Canada, from "government of the people, by the people, for the people" towards dictatorship in the interests of the preservation of class privileges against mass welfare.
To come back more definitely to the rights of private members under existing rules, may I point out that during the first four weeks of parliament private members are allotted about eighteen hours weekly. Following that they are allotted about ten hours weekly, until later in the session when private members must practically stand aside for government legislation. It should be noted also that in the present session there could be no discussion of private motions during the first two weeks, because during that period the debate on the address in reply to the governor general's speech held precedence. The net result to date, after four weeks of the session, is that the motions of six private members have been reached; nineteen are still on the list, and more to be added. Where motions are far down the list it is almost certain that the sponsors will achieve nothing this session. It may be observed, too, that frequently, when a resolution is in line to be voted upon, the privilege of the forty minute speech is resorted to by one or several members to block a conclusion, so that the measure may die or go to the foot of the list, and beyond hope of

Rules oj the House
resurrection. At least it can be said there is something here to justify study by a committee.
It will not be my purpose here to prescribe a remedy. However, as something to think about, let me suggest that resolutions not yet reached might very well be extended the courtesy of a recorded presentation of argument in Hansard, as is provided at Washington in the Congressional Record. Provision should be made for recorded support or rebuttal in the same Hansard by a minister and the leaders of opposition groups, or their delegates. Doubtless this privilege could be employed considerably to much resultant good in recording views and facts bearing on situations across the country.
Fifth: Failure to provide something of this nature presumes that the cabinet has said the last word, and that government measures meet fully the legislative needs of the year. There is no provision for systematic contacts throughout the year, whereby private members may advance proposals and have them reviewed and organized for reference to the cabinet. With our cabinet, small in numbers, there may be place for some form of advisory council of members, who will be an inquisitive, organizing body, going into matters which otherwise might be untouched. I am certain it is not the intention of our cabinet to be a finality in the origination of measures, although at times some of us who are impatient may be inclined to be critical.
Of course there must be cabinet responsibility and control in harmonizing views to policy. Nevertheless, when the volume of government business cuts off the opportunity of offering suggestions with explanations, or discourages the private members in so doing, the ministers are but closing the door through which something worth while occasionally may emerge. In much chaff there usually is a little wheat.
I am asking that a committee of the house be set up so that a study may be made looking to amendments in the rules or improvements of our methods and procedure in parliament. Doubtless every hon. member in the house has in mind one or more changes which if adopted tend towards betterment of conditions.
I submit that, without taking time to mention others, I have given sufficient reasons to justify a committee. In fact, any prolonged discussion, even though favourable to the motion, may bring about its defeat through application of existing rules. May I point out, however, that it being Wednesday, a member rising to speak at six o'clock may,
by asking Mr. Speaker to call it six o'clock, assure the continuance of the debate on Monday.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North) :: Mr. Speaker, I am quite in accord with the motion to have a committee of the house appointed to consider the rules. As has been pointed out by the previous speaker (Mr. Gladstone) there was a revision of the rules eleven years ago. At that time it was thought by hon. members who were in favour of the appointment of such a committee that by the creation of a committee to consider the rules of procedure in this chamber the work of the house might be shortened. One step that they took at that time to bring about this objective was the introduction of what is commonly known as the forty minute rule. That rule has been in effect for the past eleven years, but it has in no way shortened the length of the sessions. It requires more than a change in our rules of procedure to shorten the length of a session. Personally I am not concerned whether a session is a few weeks longer or a few weeks shorter; my concern is that the business of the house should be done in an efficient and businesslike manner. If our present rules do not permit this, I am in favour of having them revised so that hon. members may have an opportunity of transacting the business of the house as it should be done.
One suggestion I would make is that more work be given to the committees. There is a long list of committees, I do not know how many. Some of them do not sit at all during a session, while others may sit only once or twice. I am sure there are many hon. members outside of the cabinet who have had many years of public service and who could give valuable assistance to the committees. At present most of our work is done in this chamber, and having as many members as we do, it is sometimes impossible for all of us to give the result of our experience by way of an address before the house. The hon. member referred to what is done in the congress of the United States. I think we will find that much of the work of congress is done in committees.
Mr. BENNETT; They meet at twelve o'clock.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The fact is that much of the important work of congress is done by the committees. The foreign policy of the United States is debated before a committee and many important measures originate in or are sent to committees for consideration.
Rules of the House


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the hon. member ever look at the Congressional Record and see the number of speeches that are extended therein without being delivered?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Since that has been brought up, I may say that I am opposed entirely to any record being made of the speeches that are not delivered in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The whole of Henry George's book was put on the Record.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think anything should go on the record of this or the other chamber unless it has been delivered on the floor where members can hear and discuss it.
The mover of this resolution has suggested that speeches could be printed as part of the record and then the reply of the government or of the leader of the opposition or the leader of any other party could be made and appear on the record. If that were done it seems to me that we would be carrying on a sort of correspondence through sub-agencies which is no part of parliamentary procedure. The hon. member has suggested a reduction in Hansard and then he states that he is in favour of extending Hansard to the extent to which he has referred.
If more work were given to our committees it should not be necessary for us to sit in this chamber the long hours we do at present. We legislate for shorter working days for labour and yet we sit here ourselves until eleven o'clock at night. I suggested to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last year that perhaps we might follow the procedure of the British House of Commons and start our sessions at a certain time and sit right through without any adjournment for dinner. That is what is done in Great Britain, and sometimes they sit until eleven o'clock at night. I understand they open at four o'clock.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: They
open at a quarter to three.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The first part of the session is utilized for the answering of questions, so the actual session does not commence until four o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Congress sits right
through.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We do not have the work to do that the British house and the United States congress have. We have our provincial legislatures while in Great Britain all legislation is centred in the hands of parliament. Our provincial legislatures have tremendous powers and vested interests, and personally I do not see why it is necessary that the House of Commons should have to sit from three o'clock until eleven o'clock at

night, with a two hour adjournment. Last year I suggested that we should sit from two o'clock until seven and thus do away with the evening session. Even a five-hour day might be considered long enough for this house to sit. I suggest that for four days in the week we sit from two o'clock until seven, and on Fridays from two o'clock until six. Many hon. members leave Ottawa on Friday evening and perhaps it would be better if the house adjourned at six o'clock.
That would make a twenty-four hour week. At the present time we sit twenty-seven hours a week, but I am satisfied the house would accomplish more in the shorter week.
Another objection I have to our present method of conducting business is the fact that in the second half of the session there are so many committees sitting and so many members have to devote their time to committee work that it is often difficult to get a large attendance in this chamber.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: My hon. friend has just complained that there are too many committees.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not complaining that there are too many committees. I pointed out that we had a large number of committees appointed, but I did not make any complaint. I stated that many of the committees were not doing anything.


Ernest Lapointe: And they are doing too much later on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not even saying that. I have not come to the point I wished to make. I wanted to point out that these committees sit quite often when the house is in session and I submit that no member should be asked to sit in committee when the house is in session. If the house did not meet in the mornings and evenings then the committees could sit at either time and make it unnecessary to hold sessions when the house is in session.
I believe some of our estimates could be sent to a committee rather than having them all considered here. There are many hon. members who have given close attention to public matters and many of these things could be threshed out in committee. When the estimates were returned to the house I am sure they would pass in half the time that it takes to pass them at present. By giving more work to the committees we could shorten the hours that this chamber has to sit. If this matter was considered by a committee and full consideration given to all the points that have been raised, I am sure some good would result and a more efficient method arrived at of doing the business of this country.

Rules of the Home
I am in accord with the motion, and I hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), when he comes to giving the government's viewpoint, will also be in favour of appointing such a committee. I remember that when, eleven years ago, we adopted the eleven o'clock closing rule there was a good deal of objection. The government thought they would not be able to get through the business of the house if we adjourned each night at eleven o'clock; but we have got through with the business just the same, and I am sure that with shorter hours and more work placed on the committees we shall get through the business exactly as we have done in past years.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that a younger member should think twice before he expresses himself in regard to rules which have been long established for the government of the house; but I feel that the occasion is opportune for private members to express their views, not only in regard to the rules, but more particularly in regard to the utilization of their own services in this chamber.
I think the member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone) is open to congratulations upon bringing this resolution forward. I have known him for some time now, and I know that his interest not only in national questions generally, but in the machinery of the house is such as to give him a deserving place in this chamber's membership. He spoke of some of the characteristics of the United Kingdom parliament, and mentioned that the members there sat on long benches, with no desks in front of them. I am not so sure that he advocated our adopting that practice, but I think it is as well to note that there is keen controversy not only in the United Kingdom but in many of the parliaments of Europe as to the method of the seating arrangement employed in Great Britain. I have sat on similar long benches, not in the British parliament but in debating societies and at Hart House, with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in Toronto, and while those bodies in no wise aid us in considering this general problem, I think we may conclude that the British method, while it has advantages, has also certain great disadvantages.
One thing that favourably characterizes debate in the British House of Commons is, I think, this, that while there is no time limit on any private member, indeed on any member of the house, whether he sits on the ministerial benches or under the gangway, tradition precludes a member from speaking
too long. A private member of the British house speaking for more than fifteen minutes generally meets with instant disapproval from not only his political enemies but his friends too.
My main reason in rising to-day, Mr. Speaker, is that I feel as a private member if the machinery of the house were otherwise, it might be possible for the members of this House of Commons to do better work and assist with greater ability and thoroughness in the consideration of legislation.
I am afraid that the relations between the executive, on the one hand, and private members, on the other, are not exactly what they might be. I know the difficulties of ministers who are overworked, who have to sit in the house as well as attend to their administrative duties. I should like to give an experience I had a year ago when I was in Europe and visited the Hungarian parliament. An old friend of mine in that country has the post of Director of Parliamentary Activity. His job is to see that the members of the government party and the ministers are kept in constant contact. Each minister in the Hungarian parliament is assigned five mem->
bers whose duty it is to interest themselves in the problems of his department, with the result that when the minister has specific problems to consider, problems which are probably more a matter of routine than anything else, problems with which he cannot very well deal because of pressure of time, he calls in these men who have seats in the house and assigns them various tasks. That has been the practice there since 1920, and I am told, although I have not had an opportunity of examining it personally beyond observing it in this casual way, that on the whole it works very well.
While on this point, and speaking as a member of this chamber, I believe that the relationships between private members and the permanent civil service of this country are wholly inadequate. Of course, a member has an opportunity of going to any civil servant or to the heads of departments and getting information, and I have always found them very obliging; but unless there is some rule, some tradition, we shall continue to have this gap between the members and the civil service. No one who has sat in the house listening to the discussion of the estimates as I have done since I have been a member can help feeling that even with our inadequate method a great deal of information can be obtained by members listening to the questions put and the answers given by ministers, but certainly the method could
Rules of the House

be improved upon by a closer relationship between the members of the house and the permanent civil service.
Now, how to bring that about? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no member of the house, on the government side or on the opposition benches, will deny the inadequacy, insufficiency and incompleteness of the present system of presenting estimates. We listened yesterday afternoon to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and I think the discussion of his estimates was of practical benefit. We were discussing a problem arising out of the vote for the dominion observatory. Without being unfair to anyone who took part in that debate, I believe I may say there were questions put by members obviously

1 was going to say with good political motives in mind, but I do not mean that exactly-but members apparently wanted to know more about the particular vote in question than the item itself revealed. How much better it would be if there was a committee of this house, as has already been suggested, whose job it would be to scrutinize the estimates, call in civil servants and examine them face to face, with the idea not of criticizing them but of finding out the nature of their job and trying to see if we cannot improve upon it, and more effectively deal with the problem. I feel with the hon. member for Wellington South that if parliament is to continue as an institution we must realize where it is inefficient, and I believe that no part of the work of the house is done more inefficiently than in our dealing with the estimates.
I have felt the same as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) in respect to the committees of the house. They are not overworked. I belong, as most members do, to two committees, and I can speak only of those two. There is, first of all, the committee on international and industrial relations. In my judgment that committee could do a great work on problems such as unemployment; it might perhaps deal with the proposed unemployment insurance scheme and other problems of that kind, which require for their full consideration, the committee manner of attention. If the committees of the house were utilized in this way, many of us would not be listening day after day in the house to speeches, many of them no doubt worth while and reflecting public opinion in many parts of Canada, but perhaps not really relative to the immediate job. I feel that unless something is done in that respect, parliament will become more and more the target of criticism from those groups that would do away with it.

One final thought: I mentioned it last year and I do so again, although with some timidity, because I am not as close to the problem as are the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who have had the conduct of the external affairs of this country. Having in mind the intensity of the present international situation and the absence of a proper direction or a unified policy so far as public opinion in Canada is concerned, there is much to be said for the need, not of dogmatizing in international affairs but of disseminating information. After having made the observations in this connection that I made last year, I went to watch the foreign relations committee of the senate of the United States in operation. Any hon. member who has that opportunity will, I think, profit greatly by it. What happens? That committee 'has the power of calling officials of the state department, putting to them questions in respect of foreign affairs generally, and eliciting information which it might be politically inadvisable or otherwise impossible to divulge in the larger chamber. Not only has it the right to call officials, but it can summon the secretary of state, who, incidentally, is the only cabinet officer who can be summoned by a committee of the senate or of the house of representatives. Of course, from its very nature in so far as its prosecution is concerned, foreign affairs is a matter not for parliament but for executive action. Parliament nevertheless has some responsibility and certainly should have some interest in the matter. I recollect that one day, when Mr. Cordell Hull was before the committee, he refused three or four times on grounds of policy to answer questions put to him by various members. The committee understood that in the nature of things the full policy of the government in respect to foreign affairs could not be disclosed. But there is an important fringe of foreign policy which could be made known to parliament not only for the sake of parliament but for the guidance of public opinion generally.
I have spoken primarily because I share the opinion of many members, including many on this side of the house, that our machinery might be brought up to date and made efficient to the extent of using in greater measure the abilities of the rank and file of this chamber. I should like to think that something will result from the timely motion of the hon. member who proposed it.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albcrni):: I
agree with the hon. member (Mr. Gladstone) who introduced this resolution on one point

Rules of the House
at least, and that is in his protest against the acoustics of this chamber. I might say I did not clearly or fully hear what he said. I might point out to him and to the house generally, especially to the newer members, that if they would reconcile themselves to the carrying out of the purpose to which these curtains are intended to be put it would enormously increase the acoustics of this chamber. They were put up for that express reason, and if they are kept closed it makes a tremendous difference. When the heat of summer comes, and they are drawn back, the difference is very marked; if they are kept closed it will very greatly improve the acoustics-and I understand that that is about the only thing that can be done.
I was not clear whether the hon. member was quoting someone else or was speaking for himself when he suggested or the suggestion was made that we should do away with the record of Hansard in whole or in part; I think the reference was, in committee of the whole, but the principle is the same. Speaking from a very considerable experience, I should like to warn the newer members not to agree to any proposal of that kind, because it would be, I will not say their damnation, but their sorrow in days to come. Hansard is the only protection that the private member has. An hon. member who is a front bencher gets on to the front page of the newspapers, more or less correctly or incorrectly quoted; but if he is a back bencher, and the page happens to be occupied by somebody else, he does not get any notice at all, or he may get a couple of lines and he is lucky if it does not misrepresent his attitude. The first duty of a member-and I speak in the interests of the man who has just come to the house-is to represent his constituents. On some matter of more or less local or perhaps provincial importance he prepares to the best of his ability a statement of what his constituents want him to do and say, and if it does not go into Hansard he is simply "out of luck" to prove to his people that he did what they wanted him to do. On one whole campaign I was followed by a whispering campaign, to the effect that on a certain occasion, on one of the first votes in which I took part in this house, I had, in order to curry favour with the government of the day, voted with them against a resolution-which, it may interest the house to know, was one brought forward in 1922 for the exclusion of orientals- and in favour of an amendment. I had, of course, Hansard to show not only that I had voted against the amendment but that I succeeded in dissuading two Liberal members from British Columbia from doing what I was
charged with doing. I never fully overtook that falsehood, and if it had not been for Hansard it would have been utterly impossible to show what my attitude had been. That point, I think, will come home to all new members.
I am a little doubtful whether to vote for this resolution, because, while I am of opinion that there is room for great improvement in the rules, I have a little doubt if they will be improved for the benefit of the man with whom I am concerned, namely the small member, the "back bencher," so to speak. I am just a little afraid it may be another step towards success in the effort which is ever being made by the government of the day- and it does not matter what government it is, it is the same with one government as with the other; they are always endeavouring to eurtail the individuality and liberty and rights of the private member. They are forced by necessity to get on with the business; they are anxious to get on; they have far more important business of their own to transact; and the tendency always is to curtail private members' rights.
The last time the rules were revised the private member's right of speaking ad libitum was abolished and his time reduced to forty minutes. I protested against that, not that I wanted to speak so much longer but that I thought that if a man did have a message, and he might be the only member from his province on one or the other side of the house, it might be a matter of urgent importance, and to limit him to forty minutes did not seem to me to be fair. The rule has worked out fairly well, although, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) pointed out, it has not reduced the debating time of the house. Apart from that, I should be glad to see some improvement made in the rules, and I would suggest one that comes right home to us.
Standing order 15 describes the procedure in the house for each day. It provides Thursday as private member's day for the first four weeks of the session, and then it states that after the expiration of four weeks Thursday shall be government day. By the way the rule is carried out private members are simply deprived of these four days. That is the only day in the week in which what is called " public bills and orders " comes at the top of the order paper, so that it is the only day the member who has a private bill-it is called private, but it means a public bill introduced by a private member-can hope for it to be brought up, with the exception of the odd few minutes on Tuesday and Friday evenings. Those who drew up
Rules of the House

this rule intended that private members should have the first four Thursdays. They never have the first Thursday, because the house meets on that day; there is no order paper prepared, and we do not have before us any public bill, so it is hardly fair to count that day; but it is counted. Parliament met this year on January 27. A week from then was February 3; then came the tenth and the seventeenth, and to-morrow marks the end of the month, when we are cut off from the use of Thursday for public bills because of the effluxion of time, which is four weeks. To begin with, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), quite properly in accordance with the sanction of custom if not by the rules of the house, moved that the address in reply should take precedence over all other business. That cut us out of two weeks. In the third week we did have one day, but we shall be deprived of to-morrow because technically the period of four weeks lapses at three o'clock to-morrow afternoon. We are supposed to have four weeks but we have not had it, and very often we do not have it. If the debate on the address lasts longer than ten or twelve days it may well be that we have no Thursdays at all. I suggest that if we think it wise to have Thursday we should have it. But do not let us draw up rules which in practice mean something different from what they appear to be in print.
There is another thing to wtiich I would call attention. These rules, or at any rate most of them, were drawn up primarily in the days when there were only two parties in the house and when members were much fewer in number than at the present time. Now, however, groups have come into the house and evidently they have come to stay, and naturally they wish to express the views of their organizations or their affinity. And why not? That is what they are sent here for. That leads to an extension of the number of resolutions put forward for debate, and we have made no provision at all for that situation.
It is customary now for members to send in resolutions months before the house meets if they want to have anything like a chance of a place in the sun. I sent forward a resolution two months before the house met and it is away down on the order paper, so it is doubtful whether it will now be reached. This is not a desirable condition if we are to carry out what we have always been supposed to have agreed to, namely, the right of private members to bring forward resolutions for debate. If you say that we have not that right then we shall know exactly where we stand. Presumably, however, we are allowed to bring forward such resolutions, and therefore I sug-
[Mr. Neill.J
gest that we should give more time to the discussion of them. Every resolution should be heard at least once; that is only reasonable. I would go further than that and make a suggestion which, if adopted, would lead to a curtailment, which we should like to see, of the number of these resolutions. I would force every resolution put on the order paper to come to a vote, and those who had brought forward resolutions merely to demonstrate their own eloquence or to give vent to some local grievance would be confronted with the necessity of voting for their own motions. They would have to see their resolutions voted either for or against, unless, of course, the resolutions were withdrawn. But I would not have any resolution withdrawn except by unanimous consent.
Twice this session, and we have sat only four weeks, we have seen resolutions dealing with matters which the people in the particular province concerned-British Columbia- regard as of considerable importance, sidetracked by means of motions for the adjournment of debate. And that, under the rules of the house as they stand, means practically killing a resolution for the session. Would it not be better to have a resolution discussed at least once or twice? I would be heartily in favour of providing that if a member puts a resolution on the order paper he shall be presumed to know what he is doing and to be willing to support that resolution and see it through. If he is sincere he will be willing to do so; otherwise he should not put a resolution on the order paper, and he will be embarrassed if he finds an insincere expression of his carried to a vote and recorded.
I do not know what the attitude of the government is towards this question but I hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will consider what I have said in regard to Thursday, because it is not yet too late. It is only a matter of his telling the house whether we shall have to-morrow or not. In this session we have had only one Thursday-one Thursday out of the whole session-on which private members could bring forward bills of public importance, and I suggest that the government might very well give us to-morrow at least. It could be done by way of resolution.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone) proposes, Mr. Speaker, that a special committee be appointed to consider with your honour the advisability of revising the rules of the house. In my opinion members of parliament to-day have fewer rights and privileges than were

Rules of the House
enjoyed in the days of Burke in 1774. Parliament's powers are continually being curtailed.
We have two houses of parliament but the work is not evenly divided. There is no reason why the session should last six months if there were a more workable and more even division of the activities of parliament. For example, we have 245 members considering estimates in committee of the whole in this chamber. That committee is too unwieldy, and I suggest that we might very well set up various committees on estimates as in France and the United States, and, to some extent, in England. There might be one, two, three or four of these committees and they would relieve the minister and the leader of the opposition as well of some of the heavy work entailed in the consideration of supply. I think the system should be changed and we should set up an estimates committee. If a motion is made to strike off a dollar from any item in supply, we are confronted with the possibility of the government resigning if the amount of the item is reduced. This is necessary in consequence of constitutional tradition and practice; for no matter what sort of rules the house may agree upon we are bound to find read into them many precedents, rights, privileges, customs and usages of two or three hundred years' standing. For this reason I suggest that the establishment of an estimates committee system would be a great step forward. Heads of departments could appear before that committee, and items could be either added to or subtracted from without incurring the resignation of the government. Moreover, it would be a more economical and efficient way of doing business. That is the sort of system which has been followed in the municipalities. The heads of departments appear before them and go into all matters, and information can be obtained more satisfactorily than in a large committee where all sorts of questions are asked, some of them irrelevant, and a cut made in all estimates.
I suggest that our rules are not elastic enough. In the British house yesterday and the day before certain matters of very great importance were brought up and also supplementary questions put in connection with them on the orders of the day, and the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were heard in regard thereto. In this house, under our rules, such questions are generally ruled out. That is not through any fault of his honour, because I am free to admit that he has given me and other hon. members considerable latitude, and the fact of the matter is that some of our rules are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Take, for
instance, the forty minute rule. I was opposed to that rule, and I will tell the house why. On one occasion in one year there were four or five bills before the house, all relating to important public matters. One had to do with what was known as the Georgian bay and Ottawa canal, that vast heritage which was handed over to the Siftons. Another bill concerned the Sun Life, where powers were sought beyond those conferred by their charter or by the decision of the privy council in the Beauharnois matter. A third bill during that session had to do with the Bell telephone system to cut up a melon of seventy-five millions. I offer no apology for my small part in their defeat then. All these bills were talked out, and quite properly so; but had we had a forty minute rule then they would have gone through in the twinkling of an eye, although against public rights and policy.
There is no use appointing a committee to revise the rules unless we have what was proposed last session, what I say is one of the most important problems facing this parliament, namely parliamentary reform, constitutional reform, law reform and cabinet reform. Unless we have those, our rules are not on a sure foundation. In 1774, Edmund Burke was addressing his constituents of Bristol City and speaking about the rules and regulations, and our rules are not much different to-day from what they were in the time of Burke. His electors wanted to instruct him what he was to do in regard to foreign affairs, and he told them that a member could not be instructed; that when he became a member of parliament he was a member not for the city of Bristol but for the whole United Kingdom; he had to express his views not as an individual member from the sectional point of view of his constituents, but for the good of the country generally. He said in part:
You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. As to a member's sincere consideration, his mature judgment, his choice of decision, these he does not derive from his constituents, no nor from the constitution or the law of the land. They are a trust from Providence to whom some day he will have to give an account.
Our rules are published in an admirable book, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, by the learned clerk of this house. It gives succinctly the decisions for over two hundred years and is a valuable treatise. It was read the other day in the British house and it is used in the provincial legislatures. It is most useful, saving the need to go to the library in order to look up the rules and
Rules of the House

precedents of voluminous text-books. True, in my opinion some mistakes have been made in the way we conduct our business. I referred to foreign policy. In my opinion this is not a free parliament unless, for example, the question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) relating to Japanese immigration and that raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) relating to fisheries could be fully dealt with. Just to-day the hon. member, speaking on fishing licences in the Pacific, could not deal with the question properly and force it to a vote. Unless one can do so, this is not a free parliament. A member should have the right to bring forward a motion and have it voted on intelligently by the house. The subject matter of those two motions was more or less controlled by treaties, agreements and understandings which have been made in other places.
In my opinion there should be some way of dividing this work with the senate. The senate at Washington shares the work of congress. A few years ago they had a certain constitutional matter to deal with. What happened? They found it was not necessary to appoint all these roving royal commissions. Take income tax, the high cost of living, the textile, oil, prison, and many other problems, the most important facing us to-day; they were dealt with by a committee of the senate at Washington. But our senate would not work at this and do the same. They should. We have the railway problem. Who is proposing in this house or the other a solution of that problem? It could be solved in a proper way for the benefit of the taxpayers and the employees as well. In Washington they have adopted w'hat you might call a modern system, and brought it up to date to meet changed conditions. They have an estimates committee go over the estimates and arrive at a practical solution of many of their key problems. Take unemployment; look at the senate committee presided over by the late Senator Cousens of Detroit, and see what it accomplished. They summoned the leading minds all over the country and issued an admirable report in 1927, which was the basis of some of the recommendations of the Purvis commission. Instead of enjoying a holiday as our senate does, in Washington they worked during the heat of the summer. If the senate here would sit steadily from the start of the session, certain problems could be dealt with by them and the length of the session curtailed.
I have no objection to the appointment of this committee, although I fail to see what they are going to accomplish, unless they

go further and adopt parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reform. Take the present constitutional commission going around Canada; that would be unnecessary had we had this new division of work which I propose. There is nothing they will collect that we do not know now; they may get some additional information; but it is only an advisory commission, and I fail to see that the advice we shall get from this commission and many others will do any good. There are five or six of these commissions now and they prevent parliament from taking immediate action. That is one of the weaknesses of our rules, preventing immediate action on these problems. We are beset in this country by people who are seeking to bring about conditions that they found in the countries of their origin, trying to plant them in our soil. They are foreign to our population, to our soil, and to what we have always had since we have been a country. Canada's foes are of two classes, those within and those without. Against those from without we can depend on the motherland and others for protection, but against the foes within we should be up and doing. We should see to it that complaints and wrongs which prevail in this country to-day, some of them worse than war, social problems, which are a cause of as much suffering among the labouring and poorer people as when the enemy is at the gate, are dealt with.
We need some quicker method of finding a remedy for all these under our parliamentary system and a quick solution. I mentioned one matter the other day, about the housewives and the high cost of living. Nothing has been done. Before a committee in Washington they would have an investigation. We had the price spreads commission which did admirable work; every dollar they spent was for the benefit and good of the citizens, but nothing has been done to cure the ills revealed by it. For the setting up of that commission the present opposition deserves some credit. In committee of supply we hardly dare ask questions. In Burke's speech he said that every shilling of expenditure could be challenged when the matter is before the house as the house had the control of every dollar of the budget. But we have such a circuitous way of getting these things before the house; we have a notice of resolution, the resolution itself in committee; then the bill is brought in; there is first and second reading, committee and third reading, and then it goes to the other house where the same procedure is followed. If municipal affairs

Rules of the House
were conducted in the way business is done here the sittings would last the whole year around.
I do not see much use appointing this *committee for this purpose, I believe the committee should have added to its scope constitutional, parliamentary, cabinet and law reform as well as new rules.


Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest that we need not alone a revision of the rules; we need a revision of the minds of the members.
This morning I was turning over the pages of Hansard and by chance came across a paragraph of one of my own speeches. I did not recognize it at first, the language seemed so strange. So I went over it and revised it and cut out half the words and then I rewrote it and eliminated a great deal more. And when I was through with it, it was fairly passable but I confess I was profoundly ashamed of what I had done before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Shall we have opportunity to read that in Hansard?


Robert John Deachman: I would have been still more ashamed had I not gone over the speeches of other hon. members afterwards and found that about two-thirds of them, including those of some of the leaders, were almost as bad as mine.
Not long ago an editor wired me for a note of criticism on an article which had appeared. His request was for not more than two hundred and fifty words. I dictated the article, and it came out as six hundred words. I then revised it, cut it down and polished it. When I had finished I must confess it was not too bad at all. Even the most distinguished men in literature find the same thing when they come to examine their own work. I believe it was Dryden who said:
Polish, repolish,
Every colour lay;
And sometimes add,
But oftenest take away.
If hon. members would do that with their
own speeches; if they would prepare them with a little more care and do a little more work on them, there would be no suggestion of shortening the time-limit or of making many other regulations which could be suggested.
If we want examples of fine work in the art of public utterance, we will find them all around us. Could anything be more sweepingly sympathetic than the shortest verse in the bible, "Jesus wept"? Was there ever a more powerful speech delivered, measured by results, than that of Joshua when he commanded the
sun to stand still? And yet that speech was couched in fourteen words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I read it in the paper the other day.


Robert John Deachman: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon." The right hon. gentleman says he saw it in the paper. I am glad to hear him say that, because I suggested it to the editor, and no doubt it did appear there.
Then we have another splendid illustration of effective speech. May I add, in passing, that it is sometimes difficult to continue speaking and at the same time catch the subvocal statements of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). To continue: We have the magnificent example of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech. It came as a simple but dramatic expression of a perfectly elemental mind approaching a great problem by the implications of which he was profoundly moved. I believe that is true of almost any of the really great speeches that have been made.
If hon. members want examples-and magnificent ones-they will find them in the utterances of Asquith. Asquith gave many models of condensation which might well be followed by hon. members in this or any other house. I ask you to consider, as you watch a show, whether it be a moving picture or a presentation on the legitimate stage, to consider the amount of work which must have been done by the artists before the finished product was exhibited. Then consider the easy-going, lackadaisical sort of life we live here in the House of Commons, in which we say a lot and move around a great deal but accomplish very little.
I think a striking example of this is found in the questions asked in the house. Time after time we see questions on the order paper, the answers to which could have been obtained simply by calling the bureau of statistics by telephone. I have no doubt the bureau could provide the answers before the receiver was placed back on the hook. This happens frequently. Then, notices of motion are sometimes written in such a way that one could take five or six meanings from them. If we were to discuss them in the House of Commons in their original form we would waste half our time, because the opposing minds could never get together and could not agree on what they were discussing.
I believe, too, that sometimes much time is wasted in interruptions, which at times make it difficult for others to hear. Another disturbing factor is that there is an inclination towards giving a sharp retort to an
Rules oj the House

observation which may come from the other side of the house. I am never so ashamed of myself as when I fall into that little trap. Sharp retorts, devoid of humour, in a place of this kind, are the result of an adolescent mind. They come from a mind which has never developed. They come from one who feels that he must exhibit his own sharpness rather than the depths of his comprehension. Of course when there is a touch of humour in them they become delightful.
I shall give the house an illustration of the humour exhibited in this chamber on one occasion from a no less distinguished gentleman than my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He was discussing a tariff item and, rather rare for him, mentioned the fact that he thought the tariff rate was too high. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) and I simultaneously and together-a redundant phrase by the way -said "Hear, hear," whereupon my right hon. friend dropped into his seat and, with a sad look on his face, said "Now I know I am wrong." I venture to suggest that that was one of the brightest remarks I have heard. It was an instantaneous response filled with humour, and yet without pain.


Charles Avery Dunning: And covering the subject adequately.


Robert John Deachman: If hon. members want a perfect example of that kind of humour in one of Canada's great statesmen they will find it in the senator from Brockville, who has made some of the brightest remarks which have ever appeared in the Canadian press. Yet I venture to suggest that not once in all his many years has he hurt anybody in the remarks he has made.
I have just one suggestion to make. I should like to see the form and spirit of debate changed to the point where we should conceive of debate simply as a search for truth. If we were carrying on debate with that in mind, and I should happen to make a statement which causes someone to rise and to correct me, and if in doing so he has the proof that he is right and can show that I am wrong, I am not losing in the debate because I am coming nearer the truth.
And so I should like to see the practice in the house change to that extent. I should like to see debate carried on not for the purpose of beating down someone on the opposing side, or attempting to put something over them by sharp remarks. I want to see debate aim at nothing but the search for truth. When we are on a search for truth we shall get our reward, not only from our own side in politics but from the other side as well.

Upon one occasion in the house I discussed the agricultural situation. Following my remarks I went over and discussed it with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Semi). Why should I not do that? He is a farmer who has had more experience in practical agriculture than I have had. I want to cover everything I possibly can which will help me in presenting my arguments, in the hope that through our combined efforts we may do something to improve conditions throughout the country.
I think it was Montaigne who said, when accused of plagiarism, " I gather the flowers by the wayside, by the brooks and in the meadows, and only the string with which I bind them together is my own." If every hon. member can contribute some little argument or some small effort or thought, and if by our combined efforts we can gather them together into one bouquet, then perhaps we shall have something which will help us in solving the problems of the dominion.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to compliment the mover of the resolution upon affording this opportunity of discussion. Hon. members have indicated that they want to improve the methods of functioning of the House of Commons. There seems to be agreement, too, on the point that we should spend less time in verbose discussion. I have been in the house a number of years, and I say that it is unfair time and time again to spread throughout the country the fact that it costs so much per day or so much per column of Hansard, in an effort to try to make people believe that it is all wasted money. There is more than the expenditure necessary for the mechanical running of parliament; there is a human side which must be considered. Employment is given to quite a number of people who have no employment between sessions. I see some hon. members on the other side smiling at that, but I think that is something which should be considered. I do not think I have taken more than my share of the time of this house in speaking, and I make no excuse for what I have said in the past or what I am saying at the present time.
We are 245 members duly elected by the electors of the country. We all have our own problems which taken together become national in scope. This is the only way in which we can discuss these problems. I remember quite vividly when I sat in the far comer of the house nearly twelve years ago. For the first few days I was puzzled as to why there should be so many members. To me the machinery of parliament seemed

Rules oj the House
to be top heavy and very slow moving. But after listening religiously for months to the speeches made, without making a single one myself, I began to hear the voice of British Columbia, the voices of the maritime provinces, of central Canada and of the three western provinces; I began to hear the national voice of Canada. If we took the time we should to discuss the regional and national and international questions that we should, we would be here for fourteen months in the year. I do not believe we waste any time in conducting the business of the house. Again I repeat that we should not forget that employment is given to many people who will be out of employment immediately parliament prorogues.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has suggested that we should sit until seven o'clock. I am in favour of anything that will shorten the length of the session without decreasing the amount of work done. Every member, no matter from where he comes, is entitled to express his opinion upon any subject. It will be remembered that last year we had an exceptionally short session. That was not very pleasant for the so-called back benchers. We were told time and again that if it was not possible to prorogue parliament before the coronation, we would have to come back in the middle of the summer or early in the fall. Regardless of what legislation is introduced at this session, I believe it will be much longer because of one reason. Our constituents expect us not only to work in the committees but to express our sentiments in the house on some of the problems which the country has to face.
I believe that this resolution should be sent to a committee to be studied. I listened most attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North when he suggested that the estimates should be considered by a special committee. I am absolutely against the setting up of such a committee, unless it is composed of all the members of the house. Of necessity the committee would have to be limited in number, perhaps to not more than twenty-four members. Does the hon. member expect that other members who are not on the committee will be satisfied with the reports brought in? Any hon. member would have the right to discuss each item regardless of how much time had been spent in the committee and every member of this house would have the right to scrutinize every one of these items.
I remember when it was suggested eleven years ago that speeches should be limited to forty minutes. Some members thought that would not work out; but taking myself as an
example, I believe that if I were allowed to speak only twenty minutes instead of forty, my speeches would be much better than they are at the present time. Perhaps the same thing could be said of many other hon. members. An attempt to save time is not a good thing as far as this parliament is concerned. It should not be an end but a way to good legislation. Each one of us has certain responsibilities, not only towards this parliament but towards our constituents. It is our duty to see that the questions which are dealt with are dealt with properly regardless of time.
I do not know if I am in order, but there is one matter I should like to mention. I have never liked the idea of having to take an oath to get my indemnity cheque. I submit I have a right to that regardless of how many days I have been absent from the House of Commons but I must state that I have lost very little time, however. In my time I have paid several payrolls and I have never had one of my men put his hand on the bible to swear that he had worked so many days. I believe that is my responsibility to my constituents. If they do not believe I am fulfilling my duties; if they do not think I have been in the house enough, then it is up to them to penalize me the next time I ask them for their support. I believe it is degrading to ask members of parliament to go down to the office and take an oath that they have sat so many days in the House of Commons. As far as I am concerned, I have taken that oath for the last six years, and it is not my intention to do it in the future, although I have done it for the first three years.
Mention has been made of the time taken up in recording a vote. We should adopt a system similar to that used in Great Britain. I shall not say we waste half an hour, but we lose that much time in taking a vote, whereas it should be possible to take it in ten minutes. I appreciate the opportunity given to me this afternoon to make these remarks on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Gladstone). This is a private members' day. I have no doubt that on previous occasions it has been said that the time of the house has been wasted in discussing private members' resolutions. I believe that private members' days represent one of the most important principles of democracy. Speaker after speaker has stated that the number of private members' days should be increased, and I am entirely in favour of that suggestion. The government is represented by the members of the cabinet, but the individual members also have a responsibility. There is no doubt that some great benefits to the people as a whole have
Rules oj the House

resulted from private members' resolutions. Time and time again we see it stated in the press that parliament is a great waster of public funds; that parliament is a great waster of time; but I repeat that I consider it miraculous that we are able to complete the work of parliament in the time that we do. 3 must re-state here again that here in this parliament we have 245 members duly elected by their constituents and in their mandate the electors have the implicit right to expect that their representatives will discuss diligently and if necessary extensively regional and *national questions.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the speeches of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), and the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). I should like "to .express my approval of virtually everything that has been said by these gentlemen. As 3 am a new member representing a new movement, perhaps it may interest other hon. members to know how we in this corner feel about the rules of the house. One of the most confusing things to a new member is the "order" chorus. This chorus seems to be consistently put in operation when a new member tries to talk. He may be out of order, but we find it exceedingly difficult to know when we are in order and to present our ideas without being interrupted and interfered with and disconcerted and generally prevented from telling in a straightforward way the things we came to tell. In the light of that situation I think the observations of the hon. member for Cochrane were exceedingly pertinent and appropriate. If there is one thing that is truer than another it is this, that what seems the radical, extreme idea of one day is looked upon as the sane, solid orthodoxy of another.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some of them.


John Horne Blackmore: True, and who knows which of the ideas considered radical to-day will be orthodox to-morrow? That is the important thing. Nearly always the ideas which look most unorthodox to one generation are regarded as manifest platitudes to another. The history of our people so abounds in cases of that kind that it is simply a platitude for me to state it.
With respect to the resolution before us, I appreciate its having been introduced because it gives us a chance to express our ideas. Without intending any offence to the hon. member who introduced it (Mr. Gladstone), my impression is that the resolution is too

vague. I felt very sympathetic with the words of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Perhaps I may be wrong, but I have the feeling, and it is abroad throughout the land, all over the west and in many parts of the east, that there is a deliberate, secret, calculated movement aiming to suppress the popular expression of opinion, and to suppress new and popular movements, the assumption being that whatsoever is new must be wrong. Consequently in a resolution of this kind I find some ground for anxiety, and just in order to remove such anxiety it would have been better I think had the member specified in the resolution, so that we could consider them, one or two reforms which he believes desirable. If we study the history of parliamentary government among British peoples, we shall find that many attacks have been made on the rights of parliament, and some of them have succeeded in a way from which we are suffering even to-day. So I think the resolution is too vague.
We should be told, for example, to whom this committee is to report and who is to take action on its proposals. Are the proposals to be presented to this house before they are drafted in a bill?
Since we have sat here, Mr. Speaker, I have peen positively astounded at the way some things are railroaded through. Last night we had a good example of the kind of thing which under our rules may be done and what an appalling thing it is that it can be done in a great democracy like Canada. Just think of this:	If one more member
had chosen to speak or the discussion had continued five minutes longer, hon. members would not have been able to express an opinion in the form of a vote on a bill that every single member of this house enthusiastically supported; the result would have been that this country would have continued to suffer from one of the most disgusting and outrageous abuses that I believe ever began to develop in a British country, and there would have been absolutely no way of our resisting it. I refer to the bill dealing with the Performing Right Society. The feeling which was made manifest here last night so enthusiastically on that bill, has prevailed for three years, during which the people have been clamouring for a change, and for three years a bill has been brought into the house to correct this abuse, but has been killed. There is a state of affairs which manifestly is not working for democracy.
If the findings of the committee which this resolution proposes should be presented to some body not reporting directly to this house, and then if the committee's recom-

Rules oj the House
mendations are put into the form of a government measure-I do not wish to imply anything against the government, but suppose that should be done-if such measure should then come into the house with the whole strength of the party machine in operation behind it, some of the liberties at least which the minor groups in the house now enjoy could be taken away from us, and we could do absolutely nothing about it. This is too bad but it is true, so far as I have been able to judge during the short time I have been in the house.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to prolong my remarks. I wish to see reforms in parliament in so far as they will really reform, but as members of this house we cannot realize too fully that the liberties and happiness not only of this generation but of generations yet unborn are in our keeping. Before, therefore, we modify anything which has been discovered and perfected and handed down to us by our fathers as safe and sane we should be very, very careful. Consequently I must oppose the resolution on the ground that it is too vague-not that I am not in favour of reform, but that I wish to be very sure that there is nothing to come out of this resolution which will do us harm instead of good.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, after all, I believe the rules of the house are not so bad as some people sometimes represent them to be, and the discussion in the house this afternoon rather confirms my view.
I share to a large extent the view of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Blackmore) that it would be better if some practical suggestions were made in the resolution so that the house would know what is really involved in the proposal now before us. While no man is more favourable than I am to changes, provided they are reforms and real improvements, I do not want to change something that is good to make it less good. Our rules have come down to us as the result of the working out of parliamentary institutions in Great Britain and Canada for many, many years. Indeed, one of the sections of the British North America Act says that the privileges and powers of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada shall be those enacted by the parliament of Canada, provided they do not exceed the privileges and immunities and powers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords of Great Britain.
The rules have been changed occasionally in minor respects. There have been only two full revisions of the rules. I do not agree with the hon. member who said that every time the rules have been changed it has been for the 51952-48
purpose of curtailing the rights of private members, I think, on the contrary, that the rights of private members have not been curtailed but rather extended when a revision has been made. I had the privilege of being a member of the Speaker's committee in 1927, when the last revision was made, and the main changes made at that time were the eleven o'clock adjournment rule and the forty minute rule for speeches. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) says that the forty minute rule has not shortened the sessions of parliament. It is possible that it has not shortened the sessions of parliament; but I think it has prolonged the life of some of us, and it has given an opportunity to more members to express their views on any subject which comes before the house. Years ago there was no limit to either the length of the speech or the length of the session.


Charles Avery Dunning: Or the length of the day.


Ernest Lapointe: Or the
length of the day. In 1913 we sat in the House of Commons for two weeks night and day, with the exception of Sunday; at twelve o'clock on Saturday night, we being all good Christians, the house adjourned to three o'clock on Monday. There we were, divided into squads to keep the fire burning; and it was this incident that showed the necessity of the rule of closure, to which I objected strenuously and of which I complained bitterly when it was imposed. But I am free to confess that in the hectic days of 1926 I myself had to move closure, and I found it was a very good instrument to use when the circumstances justified.
Let me say that I have pondered the British parliamentary rules. I have taken my political education in the British system of parliament, and I do not agree to any extent with those who praise the United States way as regards committees and other devices. Of course it is quite different; the system is not at all the same. Ministers have no seat in congress; necessarily they must appear before committees and explain the policies of the government which have to be decided afterwards by congress. But I do not believe that anybody in this country would favour a change under which our ministers would not occupy seats in parliament. As far as I am concerned I would rather not be a minister if I had to relinquish my seat in the house.
Now, with regard to private members' rights. Mention has been made of the practice in the House of Commons in England. Perhaps hon. members know that there the government is the absolute master of parliamentary proceedings, such as the length of debates, allocation of days for a certain debate, and when

Rules of the House

the vote shall be taken; so far as private members' resolutions are concerned, there is a ballot, and the members who will have the floor on the day which is fixed for discussion are those whose names come out of the basket.


Charles Avery Dunning: And no more than one in twenty-five ever comes out.


Ernest Lapointe: So that our system is certainly not more restrictive than the one which is used in the British House of Commons.
I have been a private member twice as long as I have been a member of a government, and I do not recall that at any time I have been deprived of a chance to say something when I had something to say. My good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who is one of those who complained most, might find it difficult to recall an occasion when he has been prevented from saying something in the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not complain.


Ernest Lapointe: No? That is fine. Because, apart from the resolutions and the public bills, an hon. member can always speak when the house is moved into committee of supply, except on Thursdays and Fridays; he can say anything under the sun. There is the debate on the address, and there is the chance of speaking on other members' proposals and on government measures and of saying anything that would be of practicability and of use to the country.


Charles Avery Dunning: And on the budget.


Ernest Lapointe: And, of course, in the debate on the budget. After all, the business has to be done. The government is a committee of the House of Commons; it is an executive which is supposed to represent the House of Commons in parliament in the administration of affairs, in the carrying on of public business, and it would be impossible to go on with the business of the country if there were not some rules which at least give the government the right of way on certain days. Perhaps those days are more numerous than some hon. members would like them to be, but it is essential to make such provision; otherwise the session would be never-ending. Business could not be done properly if the rules were not substantially in the form in which they are to-day.
The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) says that the work of parliament must be one of search for truth. I quite agree with him, but I think the rules as they stand have been framed for that purpose. When he referred to the niceties of debates and the

witty repartees of my right hon. friend, I may remind him that all that has been done under the rules as they are to-day.
I am grateful and I think the house is grateful to the hon. member who moved this resolution. It has been the occasion of many suggestions which will be considered, but I believe the subject is one which needs to be studied by each hon. member individually. We were not expecting this to be a session for the revision of the rules, and I may assure the house that the work of this session will be heavy. I do not see that it would be possible to have a Speaker's committee to alter the rules of the house at the present session. However, my hon. friend's resolution has certainly served a good purpose; he has gone some way towards the end he had in view, and perhaps he will not force a division on the resolution.


James Earl Lawson: As there is hardly time left to take up effectively the succeeding notice of motion on the order paper, I should like, with respect to this discussion, to express a thought which probably was barely touched upon by some hon. gentlemen who preceded me this afternoon. It has seemed to me, in the ten or eleven sessions that I have been in this house, that one respect in which our rules are defective, at least from the public standpoint, as serving the interests of democracy, if not from the standpoint of actual debate in this chamber, is that from time to time we close the session without disposing of the business which is already on the order paper. I ask seriously whether it is not a mistake in the interests of maintaining a democratic system of government and a democratic parliament, to have the session close without private bills in some instances having had an opportunity of being dealt with. The same is true of private members' resolutions. The answer to all that is obviously that the session would run on forever and never be closed. I suggest that it might be better if we had a time limit placed upon the date, after the commencement of the session, when these matters might be put on the order paper for discussion. But I think, in the interests of the country, we ought to dispose of matters which are already on the order paper.
Let me give another illustration of what I consider an evil, if I may use that word for want of a better, of the present situation. During this session I felt compelled to divide the house, and the vote took up probably half an hour. Why did I do that? For this reason. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), rightly or wrongly, took a position which I considered in error. Under the rules

Rules oj the House
I could not discuss that notice of motion for the production of papers in the house without its going to notices of motion, and if under the rules it went to notices of motion it had little or no chance of ever being reached. It so happens-I say this with deference to hon. gentlemen who took a different view- I am thoroughly satisfied, which I suppose is not unusual, that I was right in this particular instance, and that those who voted against me on that occasion were wrong. I am satisfied that, having regard to the legal knowledge and the judicial mind of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I could present a case to him and have him decide in my favour in view of the British precedents which I took the trouble to look up.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course, under the rules, my hon. friend will have another opportunity on that subject.


James Earl Lawson: Possibly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Definitely.


James Earl Lawson: Possibly, but it is doubtful unless I wish to take advantage of the opportunity on going into supply some day-


Charles Avery Dunning: There will be another one.


James Earl Lawson: -and then I might be met with a difficulty which I shall not suggest for fear it might be raised against me.


Charles Avery Dunning: I could suggest another opportunity apart from that.


James Earl Lawson: I think the house should seriously consider whether we ought to amend the rules so as to provide that before the close of any particular session we shall dispose of all business which is on the order paper, even if we have to limit the date after which no matter may go upon the order paper.


Robert William Gladstone: Mr. Speaker, I wish to dispel the fears of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) with regard to the wording of the resolution. Referring to the Journals of the House of Commons for 1926-27, I find a similar resolution in these words:
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King (Prince Albert), it was resolved that,-A special committee consisting of Messrs. Lemieux, Elliott, Euler, Lapointe, Marcil, Johnston (Long Lake), Kellner, Bird, Hanson, Boys, Perley (Sir George), Black (Yukon), and MacDonald (Cape Breton South), be appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the advisability of revising the rules of the house and to report to the house at the present session.
In the same Journals, I find fifty pages devoted to the report of this committee, which gave us the rules of the house as they stand to-day.
As the sponsor of the resolution I should like to express my appreciation of the many hon. members who have contributed to the discussion, which I am confident will result in profit. I am sure it has brought to the notice of members of the government many points, particularly points in which private members are interested. There is no desire on the part of private members at any time to embarrass or impede the progress of the government, and I am sure that at all times it is their wish to facilitate government in every way and to do all those things which are in the interests of the people. Under the circumstances I am quite content that the motion should be withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 24, 1938