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

Mr. Speaker, I beg to

move:

That the names of Messrs. Fraser, Cowan and Ernst be substituted for those of Messrs. White (London), Guthrie and Black (Yukon) on the public accounts committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I beg to

move the motion of which I gave notice yesterday:

That on and after Monday, 8th April next, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays till the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):

Mr. Speaker, I think this motion requires a little consideration. I am entirely in accord with it as regards Wednesdays, but it seems to me that the government should not appropriate Mondays at this stage of the session to the exclusion of private bills. Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that up to the present private members have had eleven days this session to discuss their motions. This is true, but as a matter of fact so far private bills have occupied practically no time of the house whatever. According to the rules the first item on Mondays is private bills. I find that so far on Mondays private bills have occupied only one column in Hansard, and that was on February 25. In other words, at the beginning of the session private bills are referred to committees, and there discussed; they do not take up much time in the house, but later on in the session very often they require to be discussed on the floor. At the end of last session several very important private bills were left stranded on the order paper. Manifestly this is unfair to the petitioners, and I think it is not consistent with the dignity of the house that these bills should not be dealt with during the session. The procedure governing petitions for private bills is set forth in great detail in the book of rules. If the rules are complied with by the petitioners, and the bills are introduced for consideration at a reasonably early stage in the session, 78594-621

it matters not whether the petitioners be public companies or private individuals, I submit that they should be dealt with, whatever the decision thereon may be.

Last session the Prime Minister introduced a motion similar to this. I find that after it was agreed to there were seven Mondays that the house sat when private bills could not be taken up. I believe that if the house had not agreed to the Prime Minister's motion the difficulties that confronted us towards the end of the session would have been avoided, and those private bills would not have been left to the tender mercies of Tuesday and Friday evenings, which resulted in some of them not being disposed of at prorogation.

If my memory serves me right, Mr. Speaker, when I first entered the house the custom was for the government to take Wednesdays fairly early in the session, but they did not appropriate Mondays until the session was well advanced. I quite realize that this motion is drafted in exactly the same terms as the one which the Prime Minister moved last session, and I have been wondering why that wording is used. I have come to the conclusion that the form is similar to that which was used when Wednesdays only were taken over for government business. As I say, I do not remember that it was the practice for the government to give their business precedence over private bills on Mondays until towards the end of the session. To my mind this change in the old practice has produced what may be called not a proper state of affairs so far as private bills are concerned.

If private bills are allowed first place on the order paper for Mondays, I submit to the Prime Minister that the work of the session would not be delayed at all. After the private bills had been disposed of on Mondays the government would have the rest of tlhe day for their legislation following questions and notices of motion for production of papers. But if there are private bills on the order paper, then I submit that they should have consideration in the first place on Mondays, as provided in the rules. If the Prime Minister will consider for a moment, I think he will agree with me that the effect of this present motion would be practically to deprive private bills of their right to the first place on Mondays throughout the session, and in that case he might as well make a motion for changing the rules altogether; because up to this time private bills have taken only one column of Hansard on a Monday. Of course, when I say this. I have not in mind any particular private bill; it is immaterial whether they be divorce

Private Members' Days

bills or private bills of any other character, or bills in respect to companies. Private bills, in my opinion, should be proceeded with on Mondays according to the rule. I realize that the Prime Minister and the government are responsible for the conduct of the business of the house, and I have no idea of moving any amendment to the motion, but I submit to the Prime Minister that it would be better to adhere to the practice that obtained in the old days, so that private bills would hold their place on Mondays. Otherwise, I am willing that the motion should carry, so that government business would come next after questions and notices of motions for the production of papers on both Mondays and Wednesdays.

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

When I drafted the motion I had not foreseen the possibility to Which my hon. friend has just referred. The motion in no way affects the right of the house to take up private bills in the first hour on Tuesday and Friday evenings, but I am prepared to admit that my hon. friend, Who is an older and more experienced member of the house than I am, may be quite right in what he foresees as to possibilities with respect to the fate of private bills. I therefore very gladly accept the suggestion he offers, to make provision for private bills receiving first consideration on Monday, and if the house will permit me I will amend the motion I have made by adding the words " and private bills on Monday."

Mr. JAMES' ARTHURS (Parry Sound): We have had on the order paper from day to day, since February 26, an order for the resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Morin) for concurrence in the first report of the select standing committee on standing orders. This order has not yet been taken up and I have no doubt it is held back at the instance of the government. It has a direct bearing on private members' day, and I should ike to know before voting on this motion, if there is a vote, what action the government intends to take with respect to the order I have just indicated.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It was held back at the express request of my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman asked me not to have the motion proceeded with-

Mr. ARTHURS:

On Monday.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes, and I

agreed that we would not proceed on MonlSir George Perley.j

day; and not having been proceeded with on Monday the motion apparently has fallen by the way ever since.

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

I would suggest that it is

too early in the session to curtail in any way private members' days. We have a large number of notices of motions still on the order paper. These are important, at least in the eyes of those who have sponsored them, and as a matter of fact private members' day is about the only opportunity the private member has of bringing forward what he considers matters of interest to this house or to the public at large. I feel particularly free to speak on this question, because a motion in my name recently occupied nearly a week of the time of the house. Of course, having once introduced the motion I had no further control in the matter. The Prime Minister took occasion to make two quite lengthy declarations with regard to the question of natural resources in connection with that motion. I have no objection whatever to this, but I would point out that under that motion the house entered into a lengthy discussion of the whole subject of natural resources, approaching it from half a dozen different angles. Now I submit that it is not fair to the house that a single motion should be discussed to such an extent while there are eighteen others, of equal importance, which have had no opportunity for discussion. I hope the Prime Minister will see his way to leave this motion for a little while.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Shall the motion as

amended carry?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker-

Carried.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Do I understand that

the motion is carried? Carried.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Hon. P. J. YENIOT (Postmaster General):

I wish to lay on the table a return to an order of the house, reference No. 15, moved for by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church):

For a copy of all letters, instructions, regulations, orders in council, telegrams, and other documents issued by the government of Canada or any members thereof, and any other person or persons, regarding the substitution of Canadas' Mail for His Majesty's mail on postal offices, postal wagons, motors, or other postal equipment, and in relation to the removal of His Majesty's initials "G.R." from said post office equipment.

The Budget-Mr. Brady

I do not know whether I am in order in giving an explanation of this return. If not,

I will do so at some other time.

Not now.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Orders of the day.

On the orders of the day: