Mr. BENNETT:

This affords me an opportunity to say that my right hon. friend's consent is not meeting me at all. It may meet the convenience of the public. When we discussed the question as to the amount of the supply hill, whether one-twelfth or otie-sixth should be passed, the right hon.

Montreal Harbour

gentleman thought that a month was ample, and we acted on that consent. I believe that last year it was made one-sixth, at least on one occasion. I thought that probably the house might hope to prorogue within a week or ten days and it might not be a matter of tremendous importance. But in view of representations made to me this morning as to the situation in city communities, and the undesirability perhaps of credit being asked for, with a possible refusal, I said that I would ask the opposition for their consent to a bill being passed. If the opposition does not desire that it should fee done in the public interest, then I assure them that as far as I am concerned personally, it does not matter because matters of this kind are never matters of personal interest. One who has to discharge a public duty discharges that duty as well as he can. It cannot possibly be considered a matter of accommodation to me, it is a matter of public interest. If it is thought to be in the public interest, and I believe it is, then I ask the right hon. gentleman to agree to its being done, as a matter of public interest and not as an obligement. There is no question of personal accommodation in this matter, and I never took that view while I occupied the position of leader of the opposition.

So far as the future business of the house is concerned, the measures to be dealt with are those arising out of the budget resolutions and those, with I think three exceptions, now before the house. There is a public measure dealing with an amendment to the Red Cross Act. A serious situation has arisen because of the proceedings before a committee of this house. I have not asked the house to agree to morning sittings because that committee is sitting. It is a committee charged with very important duties and in the light of what transpired to-day and with respect to which the government has not yet had an opportunity to consider its future action, it may be that legislation will have to be submitted to this house for the purpose of compelling the attendance of certain witnesses who have declined to attend. The passing of a statute may be necessary or it may be that the matter can be dealt with by a royal commission. I cannot make any statement as to what the future business may be until such time as we have had an opportunity to determine what course of action will be taken in connection with this matter.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker,

may I say to my right hon. friend that when I asked him if he would advise the opposition as to the future business of the house.

I hope he did not think that I was seeking any personal consideration. It was in the public interest and in the interest of all hon. members of the house that I made the request. I know that when the right hon. gentleman asks for interim supply it is not to enable him to get through the rest of the month, but rather for the benefit of the community generally.

May I point out to my right hon. friend that he knows that the fiscal year begins on April 1, and if he were thinking of the public interest he would arrange to have his supply voted before that time, at least for the most part. He can call parliament at any date he likes and he should not have to come to the opposition in order to get his supply put through. I hope another year he will get the session started a little earlier and bring down any important measures earlier in the session, rather than leave them until the last ten days.

We will be doing

that for the next twenty years.

Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) advise the house if the work at Fort Churchill is proceeding according to schedule, and what prospects there are for grain being shipped out of that port this year.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):

Mr. Speaker, the work is well up to schedule, in fact it is a little ahead. So far as the shipment of grain out of this port is concerned, I will probably give a statement to the house to-morrow which may deal with the whole question.

Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):

Mr. Speaker, I would direct the attention of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) to the question which I asked yesterday in connection with the advertisements published by the harbour commission of Montreal advocating protection and the policy of Canada first. Will he advise the house if these advertisements have been authorized by him and if they will be continued.

Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the

advertisements to which the hon. member

Inquiry as to Questions

refers some days ago, but I would advise him that they were not submitted to me personally. I do not know as yet whether or not they were submitted to the department, but I will inquire and if necessary make a report to the house.

Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :

Mr. Speaker, in view of an article appearing in this morning's Citizen quoting a letter purporting to be from the Prime Minister (iMr. Bennett) to the premier of Manitoba to the effect that the federal gov-emmeht could not see its way clear to set up a federal wheat board, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the statements contained therein are substantially correct. If not, has the government any other scheme in view to assist in the marketing of this year's crop?

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

Mr. Speaker, the statement appearing in the press is substantially correct. The premiers of the three western provinces were advised that the government did not propose to set up a wheat board. It offered an alternative in respect of which it has not as yet received a reply.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, of nine questions which were left with the clerk during last week and this week, only one has appeared to date in the votes and proceedings. Will Your Honour advise me when I might expect to hear about these?

Mr. SPEAKER:

I advise the hon. member that the clerk has looked into the questions which he submitted, as well as the notices of motion, and it has been found that they are out of order. They are unparliamentary; some have been answered already, others have been held to be irregular and were ordered expunged from the order paper, others were considered as being argumentative, others contained presumption of facts, and others contained insinuations. For these very good reasons they are considered to be out of order. The clerk declined to put them on the order paper, and I approved of his decision.

Mr. POULIOT: Could I have the

authority?

{Mr. Duranleau.]