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

Mr. Speaker, a Canadian

Press cable which arrived this morning states that Mr. Howard Ferguson has made the following proposal in Rome:

That it is desirable that delegates of countries exporting wheat, namely Argentine, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Hungary, India, Poland, the Union of Soviet republics, Roumania and Jugoslavia should meet together as soon as possible to organize on an international lwsis the exportation of the crop year of 1931-32.

I should like to ask the government if Mr. Ferguson is authorized to make a proposal that involves negotiations with the Soviet government. If so, it is the best news we have had for some time.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):

The hon. member's inquiry will be taken as a notice of motion.

Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call the attention of the house and the government to the acute distress existing among large numbers of industrial workers throughout the Dominion.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Alinister):

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the form of the motion but judging from what the hon. member has said it would not be in order inasmuch as this matter has been under debate and is mentioned in the speech from the throne.

Unemployment

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):

May we have the motion, please?

Mr. SPEAKER:

If any hon. member desires to speak on the point of order as to whether or not the application* is in order, he should do so before I give my ruling.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Will Your Honour read the application?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The application is by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and asks for leave under standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance, namely, to call the attention of the house and the government to the acute distress existing among large numbers of industrial workers throughout the Dominion.

Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) :

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say just one word on the point of order? Without disputing the importance of the subject raised bv the hon. member for North Winnipeg, I submit that the interpretation which always has been placed upon this rule has been that it must be a matter of recent occurrence. Furthermore, it must be of such urgent character as would create an injustice were hon. members of this house precluded from discussing the subject matter. I submit, first, that it is not a matter of recent occurrence, and, second, that it would be open to hon. members to discuss this question during the debate which is now 'before this house. Therefore, the hon. gentleman is not in order in asking permission to discuss this subject as a matter -of urgent public importance.

Mr. HEAPS:

In moving this motion I

was guided by the actions of-

Order, order.

Mr. DUFF:

The hon. member should speak to the point of order.

Mr. HEAPS:

I am speaking to the point

of order raised and I desire to call the attention of the house to one precedent. In 1926, when the present government was in opposition, I find the following action taken by the house. It was moved by the then hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. L. W. Johnstone), that leave *be granted under rule 39 to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call the attention of the house and the government to the acute distress existing among the coal miners

of Nova Scotia, many of whom were actually on the verge of starvation. My motion follows almost word for word the motion made in 1926.

I might state also that in the speech from the throne delivered in 1926, reference was made to the conditions in Nova Scotia, as follows:

W itli a view to affording such remedies as may appear to be practical and appropriate, the government also propose to appoint a royal commission to inquire fully into the claims that the rights of the maritime provinces in regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway have not been observed, and that in regard to transportation, immigration and other economic factors these provinces have suffered prejudicially, in their position under confederation.

At that time the condition of the miners in Nova Scotia was not a matter of recent occurrence. I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that in 1926 this motion was made during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. My motion is on almost all fours with the motion made in 1926, and I submit that I should be allowed to proceed.

No direct reference is made in the speech from the throne this year to any action which the government intends to take to deal with unemployment. We should not at this time insist on technicalities as I consider there is no more important question to be dealt with by parliament. The speech from the throne makes a certain vague reference to the economic conditions which prevail at the present time but there is no reference at all to any definite action which the government intends to take in order to meet the existing situation. In the rules of procedure the word "definite" is used, and we have to deal with a definite rather than an indefinite matter. May I point out also that the appropriations which the government has voted will expire to-day and there will be no further funds available for the municipalities or the provincial governments with which to cope with the present conditions.

Therefore, I consider thare is an urgent need for a discussion of this question which, as I have stated before, I believe to be the most important question that can come before this house.

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

Mr. Speaker, in speaking on

the point of order it seems to me that this matter involves the rights of the members of this house. In stating the procedure subsection 3 of standing order 31 reads as follows:

Unemployment

He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.

If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than twenty members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.

I submit that the mover of this resolution (Mr. Heaps) has complied with the rules. He has handed to the Speaker a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed.

I realize that the next clause of the standing order is to the effect that if the Speaker thinks it in order it is read out, but I take it that that is only a formal matter. The proposed motion might not be formally in order; then it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to say that it is not in order and to reject it. But we are here dealing with another matter. With all deference to Your Honour I do not think it can be said that thd possibility of the introduction of a motion of this kind is dependent upon the decision of Your Honour as to what is an urgent matter; that is dependent upon the twenty hon. members who may rise and support it. I do not think there can be any question that the motion is formally in order. Several years ago a motion in precisely the same form was introduced upon a like occasion and no question was raised by the Speaker as to its being out of order. A precedent was established and I do not see how it can be said that this is not in order. The only ground upon which he can rule that it is not in order is as to whether it is a relevant matter or not, and that depends on the decision of twenty members. I claim that it becomes your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether or not twenty members believe that this is a matter of urgent public importance.

The suggestion has come from the opposite side of the house that already a reference along this line has been made in the speech from the throne. It must be conceded, however, that that is a very general reference, and my colleague has more than answered that when he has shown that similar action was taken on a previous occasion when the members of the present government were in opposition. As to the urgency of the matter-, may I emphasize that the grant runs out today and that already a number of municipalities are cutting off direct relief to large numbers of men and women? The municipalities take the ground that they have no help from the Dominion government. What is to be done in such a situation as that ? The Dominion government has given no indication of what its policy is to be and tomorrow these men will be on the streets. I have to-day from a western city a letter along that line.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Will the hon. member confine himself to the point of order?