Mr. MacINNIS:

May I ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Vancouver North? In view of the fact that a number of these single unemployed men are without shelter in this city and that they have now been ejected from the employment bureau, has the minister any advice to offer as to where they may go for shelter or employment?

Mr. ROGERS:

These men, I can say definitely, were not ejected from the employment office because they went there to seek work in the usual way. No one would be ejected from the employment office for such a reason. So far as the rest of the question is concerned, I can only repeat what I have said before, that these men are eligible for such work as offers from time to time. As

Barter in Trade

regards shelter, their position is precisely the same as that of other single unemployed in Ontario.

Mr. COLD WELL:

Will the minister get in touch with the local and provincial authorities with a view to clearing up this situation, which is causing a great deal of discussion in the city and a good deal of distress to the men?

Mr. ROGERS:

At the appropriate time, when my estimates are before the house, I shall be quite prepared to discuss the matter again with my hon. friend. The question of relief for single unemployed in Ontario has already been discussed. The time was extended to May 1. The practice followed this year by the provincial government, I am informed, is no different from that followed in previous years, namely, that single unemployed men are struck off relief in the spring.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :

About a week or ten days ago I referred to an item that had appeared in the press to the effect that 100,000,000 bushels of grain were to be traded by barter from the United States to the British authorities in return for tin and some other products. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce said he would look into the matter and give to the house any further information that might be available. I should like to know what action has been taken and how the matter stands to-day.

Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

The other day I said the government had taken cognizance of the matter and was taking such action as seemed possible in the circumstances. I may as well add that we communicated with the high commissioner in London, but we have not yet received a reply.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

I wish to call the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) and of the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) to the

fact that certain highly undesirable and disgraceful articles have been appearing in some Hearst newspapers and other United States publications. In the issue of April 22 of the Saturday Evening Post such words as "looted the U. S. Treasury" are used and attacks are made on Great Britain and France. The article in question discusses money which Britain and France are supposed to have borrowed from the United States, the charge being made that these debts have not been honoured, though funds can be found for rearmament and so on. It says:

It was the British government, commanding the serpent's-tooth rhetoric of Lord Balfour and the insulting tongue of a chancellor of the exchequer, that called upon the world to witness that America, the Shylock, valuing gold more than blood, sacrifice or friendship, was bleeding Europe white by exacting her pound of flesh in the name of war debts-*

And so on. The article is untrue and unfair, and in my opinion the publication, even if the statements were true, should be banned in days of stress such as these. In view of the action of the Ontario legislature may I ask what the government intends to do with regard to publications of this sort, and others? I submit that they should be prohibited.

Mr. CHURCH:

I rise to a point of order. The question of marketing agricultural products and the matter of crop insurance have already been dealt with by this house. On Tuesday, February 14, a motion was moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. McDonald) and adopted, appointing a special select committee to investigate and report on the possibilities of endorsing a workable scheme of crop insurance for the three prairie provinces. That resolution embraced the very principle of this bill. It read:

That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed to investigate and report on the possibilities of endorsing a workable scheme of crop insurance for the three prairie provinces, such scheme to become operative for the 1940 crop season.

I call attention to the rule. The house dealt with it and approved the appointment of a committee; the motion was adopted unanimously by the house, and the committee has never sat. The rule of anticipation is very clear: a government bill cannot pass until

Cooperative Wheat Marketing

a resolution has been adopted by the house on the same question. This bill is distinctly out of order. If we are going to have rules, let us keep to them. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the point, although you may not be able to give a ruling immediately. The bill is clearly out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am of the opinion that the point of order is not well taken. The government has always precedence in these matters. The hon. member refers to a resolution on a similar subject which was moved by an hon. member of the house and which was subsequently adopted. But this resolution was simply an expression of opinion of the house. The government always has the right to bring in legislation, therefore I think the point of order is not well taken.

Mr. GARDINER:

I wish to raise a question of order before proceeding to discuss Bill No. 82. Last evening at the end of the sitting a group of hon. members representative more or less of the three groups in the opposition approached me to discuss ways and means of facilitating the discussion of four of these bills, Nos. 82, 83, 89 and 63. It was suggested that we might facilitate matters by having, on two of the bills, the greater part of the debate on the principle of the legislation, without too great restriction from the chair. As a result of those representations I am quite prepared, and I am sure the government would be, to have the discussion take place freely on bills 63 and 83, with the understanding that on bills 82 and 89 I would make an explanation and there would be a short discussion if necessary on second reading and rather free discussion in committee; then we could proceed to the other two bills and allow rather free discussion of the whole wheat question thereon. Before proceeding I should like to have that understood, if that is to be the procedure. Under the circumstances I would not make an extended speech on this bill at this time.

Mr. MANION:

It seems to me the minister is putting the cart before the horse.

Mr. GARDINER:

It is not my proposal.