Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi) moved:

That the first report of the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in.

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present the following petition from blind persons in the city of Winnipeg-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. Is the hon. gentleman going to read the whole petition?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

May I read the

petition?

Mr. SPEAKER:

No. Under rule 75,

certain proceedings are necessary before a petition is in order. First the petition must be presented to the Clerk of the House. The day following the Examiner of Petitions reports, and if the petition does not contain matter in breach of the privileges of the House, it may be read by the Clerk of the House. The hon. member may however present his petition to-day.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I should like to

present a petition signed by some 144 blind persons, and also a petition signed by some

21,000 citizens of Manitoba.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I do not

believe the government really and seriously want both days all at once. I am speaking on behalf of my hon. friends to my left who, I see, have a great many notices of motions on the order paper.

Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):

I

would suggest that the leader of the opposition just speak for his own party.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I would have confined myself to doing so, but I see evidences of the arrangement in the silence of hon. gentlemen to my left. I do not like to assume that they put these motions on the order paper merely for display, but that seems to be the conclusion from the remarks of the leader of the Progressive party. However, we did not put our motions on the order paper for that purpose. I know, of course, that it will be necessary to take an increasing share of the days of private members, but unless the rules are amended, or at least the time deferred, it

Rural Credits

really becomes absurd to place important motions on the order paper at all. It is true that some motions have been called, but that does not affect the case, because if those motions had been moved the others could not have been. All the motions that could have been moved have been moved within the time allotted. Personally, I would not object to Wednesday being taken; I think it is usual to take Wednesday first and withhold Monday for a little time. We will get through as fast as possible; but there are fouf or five pretty important resolutions for the discussion of which an opportunity should be afforded. I would ask the government to amend the motion so as to limit it to Wednesday-I have no objection to that- leaving Monday still available for the business of private members of the House.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I should like to endorse what has been said by the leader of the opposition. It seems to me there are several motions on the order paper that are of importance. There has not been a very long time since the government really established itself to discuss these matters, and speaking for my own little group in this corner, I would say there are one or two motions on the order paper which we would like to have discussed. My colleague (Mr. Heaps) had a motion for the production of papers which, contrary to the usual custom, was put down on the order paper to be debated. There has been no opportunity whatever of having that motion debated. I would hope that we would be given another day or two in order that this and other motions might be discussed.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I wonder if it would meet my hon. friend's wishes if we were to leave Monday, April 19, that is, instead of saying "on and after Monday, 19th of April" to say "after Monday, 19th and subsequent Wednesdays". That would give another Monday. If the suggestion is agreeable I should like to amend the resolution in that way.