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

Mr. Speaker, with the

consent of the house I should like to make the following motion, with the understanding that if there is any objection it may stand aa a notice. The motion is:

That on and after Monday, March 24 next, and all subsequent Mondays and Wednesdays until 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 and private bills on Monday.

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

I had not understood the right hon. Prime Minister to say that his motion would include both days. I thought it was intended only to take Mondays and to leave Wednesdays for the time being.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I may say, Mr. Speaker, that during the last three years the average time allowed to private members has been ten days. One year it was eight days; another year it was ten days and in the third year it was eleven days. This motion would allow ten full days to private members.

Perhaps I should add that there is this year an even stronger reason why this motion should be carried than was the case in previous years. Up to the present time the government has had only two days for its business since the house opened. If we except the time taken for the discussion on the speech from the throne which took but one day or two we have had only two days devoted to government business. After all the government is entitled to some place in parliament in the matter of its legislation.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):

But may I say, Mr. Speaker, that in the old days, as I remember it, there were always two motions in connection with this taking away of the days of private members. The first motion, if my memory serves me right, would be for Wednesdays, and a couple of weeks later a motion would be made with regard to Mondays. It seems rather hard for the members who have notices of motion on the order paper to be entirely shut off after this week. I should like to suggest that the Prime Minister look up the precedents, and I think he will find that this was the customary procedure.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I have looked up these points, and as a matter of fact probably notice should have been given a fortnight ago with regard to this motion, but I think my hon. friend will find that what is being proposed for this year is quite the customary average. However, this might stand is a notice for the present.

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):

I should like lo direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that this year we took just a little over one day to dispose of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne which, in my own recollection, often has taken a period of three weeks. I think the government certainly is trying to shut off private members' days much too early in the session. I certainly think this should stand as notice and that private members should be allowed further days.

Insurance Act

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Mr. BENNETT:

As the Prime Minister indicated, unless it is consented to unanimously it will have to stand as notice.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Stands as notice of motion.

Explain.

Mr. DUNNING:

The object of the bill is to make three amendments, not of a very important character, to the Insurance Act. The first amendment provides for the release of securities by the superintendent of insurance to a liquidator, under court order. The second amendment has to do with a difficulty which has arisen in permitting companies to declare a dividend when in any particular year they did not comply literally with the provisions of the act with respect to surplus and accumulated reserves, and the third amendment is designed to permit the issuance of shares by fire and casualty companies of a lesser par value than $100.

I may say that it is my intention to ask the house to refer the bill to the committee on banking and commerce following second reading, in order that a thorough examination of its provisions may be made.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):

May I ask the Minister of Finance if there is any provision in this bill for limiting the investments of any insurance companies in common stock?

Mr. DUNNING:

No.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.