Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved:

That 500 copies in English and 250 copies in French of that portion of the return tabled on April 19 respecting diversion of water at Chicago, not already in print, be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :

It does occur to me, Mr. Speaker,

that if only those portions that are already in print-

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

All but

those already in print.

Mr. BENNETT:

A number of the documents attached to the report are already in print, and they should be treated as a whole.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

If my hon. friend will let this motion stand I will consider what he says.

Motion stands.

Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved:

That all unopposed private bills placed on the order paper for consideration from 8 to 9 p.m. on Tuesday, the 1st of May, 1928, be then given precedence over other bills.

My purpose in moving this motion, Mr. Speaker, is to enable the house to pass-without prejudice to other private bills-bill No. 57, which stands as order No. 56 under private bills. It is "an act respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company." I am asking the house to table this course because of a telegram I have received from the Department of Railways and Telephones in Alberta, reading as follows:

Please advise when sanction of E D and B C legislation authorising extensions of main line and Grande Prairie branch may be expected. Very essential that construction of Grande Prairie branch extension be started at once in order that grading be completed before winter owing to advanced state of settlement in

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway

locality to be served by proposed railway extension. In public interest that railway facilities be provided early as possible. Wire reply.

(Signed) Jno Callaghan.

I may say that an early start on this railway will make a difference of a season and accommodate settlers who are now living from thirty to seventy miles from railway facilities and raising from a million to a million and a quarter bushels of grain. Consequently the Alberta government, having made an appropriation for this railway extension, are anxious to start work as quickly as possible.

The bill finds itself in its present position through a collision with the rules, which apparently none of us thought of when we asked on April 17 that it stand. When the bill was in committee a mistake was discovered in the wording of a certain amendment. Let me illustrate my point by quoting from Hansard of that date:

Mr. Dunning: Ferhaps the hon. member for Peace River would consent to leave the bill in committee in order that he may determine what amendment should be made.

Mr. Cahill: If the figures are not right there must have been an error on my part in putting them down. In that case I hardly think it necessary to give notice of an amendment.

Mr. Kennedy: I am quite certain that in subsection (a) the words should be seventy-eight or seventy-nine. And in subsection (b) seventy-seven or seventy-eight.

Mr. Dunning: If my hon. friend is prepared to move an amendment now, in view of the fact that apparently there is a clerical error in the record we may dispense with the usual notice. In any event the mistake must be corrected by some formal action on the part of this committee. I suggest to my hon. friend that he leave the bill in committee in order to enable him to confirm his impression, or he may move the necessary substitution now.

Therefore I would ask the house to agree to this motion.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Can my hon. friend tell us what bills on the list of private bills are the unopposed bills to which he refers?

Mr. KENNEDY:

I think that would be

quite simple. We could start in and if any bill is opposed simply let it stand. It would mean very little delay for opposed bills.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

But a bill cannot be called unless

it is to be unopposed. By what standard are we to judge it is unopposed; who will tell us that there will be no opposition in order that the bill may be called?

Mr. KENNEDY:

The opposition will develop as we go along. If it is impossible to proceed under the rules, have the government any objection to this bill being read tomorrow?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

There is no

reason why one private bill should be given preference over any other. The government is anxious that all of these bills should be reached, and if hon. gentlemen will co-operate with us we will do our utmost to expedite the final disposition of all the private bills.

I do not think we can single out one particular bill and at the same time disregard all the others.

Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):

Mr. Speaker, this bill would have gone through the house the other night except for a clerical error-purely unintentional-on the part of the chairman of the railway committee. At the time he admitted that it was his error. Therefore I think this bill is in an entirely different category from the other private bills.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion is not wholly unreasonable in view of what has transpired in this particular case. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was not in the house the other evening when the bill was being considered. It would have gone to its third reading, but the figures indicating a township seemed to be uncertain, and the minister then in charge of the house suggested that the bill stand. By standing it lost its place. It is a public measure in the sense that it is desired by the province of Alberta. Under the circumstances it seems to me we might let the bill go through. I think Hansard shows that the minister said he would suggest the measure stand.

Mr. DUNNING:

No. I was the minister concerned and I will deal with it in a moment.

Mr. BENNETT:

My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) read it.