Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Explain.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

The object of this bill is simply to bring in line the provisions of the regulations which existed before the introduction of the bill in 1924. There was considerable doubt as to whether the act of 1924 had provided that all the agreements under the regulations with individuals who had staked claims should be carried out, and this is for the purpose of clarifying that matter. So far as the provisions of the bill are concerned, it is made retroactive to the date mentioned in the bill.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, in accordance with the notice given:

That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the 2nd of June, 1926. it stand adjourned until Friday, the 4th of June, 1926.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I beg to move, in accordance with the notice given:

That on and after Monday, the 7th of June, 1926, until the end of the present session, the House shall meet at two o'clock in the afternoon of each sitting day.

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to protest against this motion. I know of no other body of men in this country who have to work both night and day. We have been here for nearly five months; we have spent six weeks in I think useless debate on the Address, about five weeks more on the budget debate, to which only a few members listened and those who did listen did so simply that the House might have a quorum. Now at this late hour in the session, when we are doing business, we have just accepted a motion from the Prime Minister to sit an extra hour each day-I heartily approve of that-but I certainly think a protest should be made against this resolution to

Wednesday Evening Sittings

take the one night which we have in the week. I believe this House could do its business far better if we did without night sittings altogether. I see no reason why a body of sensible and reasonable men could not devise rules under which we would not need to sit both night and day.

I have read lately with much interest a speech which was delivered in this House in the year 1907. I would like to present to the House, and I will guarantee not to take more than a few minutes, a few of the statements made on that occasion by Mr. Wright, the then member for South Renfrew, because they deal with this particular question and they seem to me to be very pertinent.

Mr. Wright on that occasion called attention to the long hours that had to be put in and the arduous work that a private member had to do if he took his duties seriously, as I think everj'- member of parliament should. I know personally of one member of this House, who was at work yesterday morning at twenty minutes to nine. That member was still here last night at midnight, and was then asked to vote on a motion to adjourn the debate. Any member who voted against that motion was liable to the censure of a large number of the members of this House. That member had to be here again this morning to attend to his correspondence, then he had to attend a certain committee at 10.30, stay there until one o'clock, then rush out and get his lunch, and get back to this chamber at three o'clock this afternoon, and possibly he will be required to stay here until midnight again to-night. I ask the House and the government if that is a sensible way to carry on the business of this country. If these remarks apply to the private member, they apply with even greater force to the Prime Minister and to the members of the government. What chance have these men to get a decent night's sleep under such conditions? What chance has the leader of the opposition? The leader of the opposition, as we all know, to our regret, has been confined to his home through illness recently, and I have no doubt that it was largely brought on by the arduous duties he is called upon to perform and the long hours he is compelled to spend in this House.

I would also draw the attention of members of the House to the fact that we have here in this chamber a large number of pages, most of whom I understand are orphans, or boys without fathers. They come here because it is necessary for them to earn a living. In most of the provinces in Canada we have an act to prevent children being employed after certain hours at night in factories, but in this

"factory of words and phrases," as Mr. Wright describes it, these poor boys are compelled sometimes to stay all night-on Wednesday night as well as other nights if this motion carries.

I have no hope, Mr. Speaker, of preventing this resolution carrying and of preventing this House from being compelled to sit on Wednesday night, but I think a protest should be made on every possible occasion against the procedure which compels members to stay here both night and day.

What I propose is this: Let us meet, say. at one o'clock in the afternoon and sit till six. If we did that, with proper rules, we should get through the business of this House in four months. As Mr. Wright pointed out in his speech in 1907, almost every parliament in the world, with the exception of those of Great Britain and Canada, carries on its 'business without night sessions at all. I think it is high time that private members on all sides of this House should exercise a little bit of their power and demand of all parties in the House that some reform of the rules shall be made so that we shall not be compelled to sit here four, and now five, nights in the week to most unearthly hours. Mr. Wright said on that occasion that we were citizens of a Christian country and were supposed to do our work in daylight and sleep at night. I think I cannot do better than simply impress that idea upon the House before I sit down. I think that all parties are equally guilty of allowing the business of this House to drift until we get into this position, where it seems necesary to sit every night in the week, and before the end of the session, no doubt, we shall sometimes have to sit all night. *

Move an amendment.

Mr. COOTE:

I do not think I should move an amendment. The leader of the opposition said a week ago that he was quite willing to sit on Wednesday night, and I think possibly the House wishes to sit on Wednesday night so as to get through, but I do want to emphasize this: If we had adopted suitable amendments to the rules early this session, or at the last session, we would not now be required to sit five nights a week.