Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House to an 137

incorrect report which appears in the edition of the Toronto ' World ' of February 25 lafit. The statement reads as follows:

Ottawa, Feb. 24.-(Special.)-If the Naval Bill is not withdrawn and held over till next session, it will not be the fault of a couple of western Liberal members, who are to-night circulating for signature a petition to Sir Wilfrid Laurier to do one of two things- either bring this naval debate to a sudden conclusion so that they can get to their homes by Easter or withdraw the Bill.

It is impossible, of course, under the present conditions, to limit this important debate, and at the present rate the House cannot rise before June, even although future Wednesday evenings will now be requisitioned for the work of the Commons. Therefore the petition narrows itself down to a request for withdrawal of the Bill.

Western Liberals in common with western Ontario Liberals are not enamoured of the Bill, and would gladly see it dead.

This statement contains only a semblance of truth. It is a fact that there was a petition circulated amongst the members of both sides of the House; it was not prepared by western Liberal members, but was prepared by Liberal and Conservative, members who sit on both sides of the House. There was nothing stated in the petition as to the bringing of the debate on the Naval Bill to a conclusion before Easter, nor was there any statement with respect to the withdrawal of the Naval Bill. The petition was simply got up by a number of members on both sides of the House for the purpose of bridging the attention of the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) to the desire of a great many hon. members of this House to get home by Easter, if possible, and to prevent them from being required to come back after the adjournment. I have in my hands part of a petition that was signed and which is a very harmless document. It is simply a request to the two leaders of the House that steps be taken to ensure the prorogation of the House before Easter. There is no attempt shown in the document to prevent proper discussion of the Naval Bill or any other matter of general public interest, and that the petition! did meet with general favour by members on both sides, is, I think, demonstrated by the fact that the part of the petition which I hold in my hand was signed by seventy, members on both sides of the House.

Mr. STAPLES.

By how many on this side?

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

I think therefore newspapers spread reports of this kind they should make themselves thoroughly familiar with the facts.

Mr. STAPLES.

How many on this side?

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

If my hon. friend) will be quiet for a moment, the statement which I made will be corroborated by members on the other side of the House.

Mr. STAPLES.

I simply rose to ask how many members on this side of the House signed the petition.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN.

I have in my hand the pettions, except one that was circulated on the other side. I see on one the names of at least two members on the other side of the House.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.

I am one of those responsible on this side of the House for starting and circulating the petition, but as the hon. member (Mr. W. M. Martin) said, our whole object was to bring to the attention of the leaders of the House the desirability of securing prorogation within a reasonable time. So far as I can learn there is very general discontent on both sides of the House at the long time which has elapsed since this House assembled and at the small amount of business that has been done. I am safe in saying that members on both sides would like very much to secure some better arrangement than we have at present for the meeting of the House and the prosecution of business after we do meet.

Mr. FOSTER.

I would ask the Finance Minister if. he has any information to give to the House as to when we may expect the Banking Bill.

Mr. FIELDING.

I had contemplated bringing forward a revision of the Banking Act, and it is in an advanced condition. I am aware of the representations made within the last day or two on both sides as to the desirability of curtailing the government programme and bring about an early prorogation, and I would like to know what progress is likely to be made in that regard before deciding definitely.

I still desire to bring forward the Banking Act, but if there is to be an early prorogation the proposed Act might stand over until next session, as the bank charters do not expire until July 1, 1911. If the session is to be protracted the Bank Act will be brought forward, but if there is a desire to curtail the session it may remain over until next session.

Mr. LEWIS.

I would ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made by the committee which he appointed for the

Mr. STAPLES.

revision of the rules with a view to shortening the session, if possible.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

There has been one sitting of the committee, and it is intended to have another one this week.

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

A Bill has been prepared, notice of it will be given to-day, and it will be submitted to the House immediately, covering the amendments to which my hon. friend refers. It is in relation to all fisheries.

Mr. BRADBURY.

I think the minister hardly grasps my meaning. A commission was appointed to investigate Manitoba fisheries. They made a report, and on the strength of that report it is proposed ta adopt new regulations, and it is of those new regulations I am speaking now.