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

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday

of last week I tabled a letter which I had written to the premiers of the different provinces with respect to the holding in January of a joint conference between the dominion and the provinces to consider the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission. I have since received replies from all the premiers. I beg leave now to table these replies. In order that hon. members may have the record complete I shall ask the clerk, if it is agreeable to the house, to see that the replies received from the several provinces are printed in the Votes and Proceedings of to-day.

Explain.

Rules oj the House-Reading Speeches

Mr. CHURCH:

During the last war the

railways voluntarily carried men for single fare on week-ends. Now they carry them every day at half rate. At the present time the Railway Act dioes not provide for any special concessions to soldiers during war time, nor has the board of transport commissioners power to deal with the matter. In view of the fact that many men are taken to camps far from their homes, and the distribution of troops fior training is spread over all Canada, it is most desirable to give soldiers some form of free transportation. Many of them have been killed on the highways while thumbing rides. To give an example of what I have in mind, there are twenty-six men from my own riding who are now in Newfoundland and who would like to get home. I suggest that after this bill receives second reading it be considered by a special committee of the house.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. RULES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to amplify my previous ruling in connection with standing order 37.

I have been giving further consideration to the interpretation of this standing order in view of the discussion which took place yesterday. For the purpose of the record I shall read again standing order 37, which is as follows:

No member, except the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister, or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto, shall speak for more than forty minutes at a time in any debate.

It will be recalled that this standing order was adopted on March 22, 1927, but since that date changes have been made in several departments to deal with the exigencies of these days; and where formerly there was only one minister of defence there is now a Minister of National Defence, a Minister of National Defence for Air and a Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs. There are also two new departments, under the Minister of Munitions and Supply and the Minister of War Services.

I ruled yesterday that the Minister of Agriculture, who is also Minister of War Services, in his reply was not limited to forty minutes. I am of opinion that is a correct interpretation of standing order 37. I am now 14873-9*

asked as to that interpretation should other ministers make reply. It will be noticed that the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) is as follows:

That the following be added to the address to His Excellency:

" We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house regrets that the government has continued to soothe the Canadian people regarding the war effort of the nation, thereby creating a false sense of security when a clear-cut call to action is desperately needed.

" And this house further regrets that despite the serious condition of agriculture no effective action is proposed to alleviate that condition and to ensure to the Canadian farmer a just, fair and reasonable return for his products."

And the amendment of the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore) is as follows:

That the following be added to the amendment:

" And this house further regrets the failure of the government to adopt a monetary policy that would permit a maximum war effort without either increasing debt or reducing the standards of living below that necessary for maintaining maximum efficiency;

" Furthermore this house is of the opinion that a continuation of the present financial policy will further destroy the precious liberties so essential to, and recognized as being inherent in a true democracy."

Both of these amendments make use of an embracing term, namely, "war effort of the government," and express their dissatisfaction.

I think I am correct in stating that the intention of the standing order was to give wide latitude to the opposition to attack the policy of the government and just as wide latitude for the government to make a full reply.

During the course of the debate the theme of every speech has been directed to the activities of the government in prosecuting the war effort and a request for a full and complete statement of such war efforts to the house. In order that this should be done properly and adequately each minister could only speak for his department and it would be impracticable if not impossible for one minister to reply for all departments.

I am inolined therefore to take the view that I should give as wide and as broad an interpretation of the rule as is possible in order that the veiy evident desire of the house be satisfied. I believe I will be giving effect to the sense of the house in the manner I have indicated so that in these war days a complete reply, unhampered by time, could be made by the ministers whose departments may be the subject of attack.

This ruling would affect six ministers, namely: The Minister of Agriculture and War Services (Mr. Gardiner), who has already

132 COMMONS

Rules of the House-Reading Speeches

replied; the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), who is now replying; the Minister of National Defence for Air (Mr. Power), the Minister of National Defence for Naval Affairs (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). These ministers are all directly connected with the amendments which "have been made.

While I am dealing with these matters with particular reference to the debate before the house, I would also like to remind the hon. members of the house as to the rule regarding reading of speeches. Last session I made a statement regarding the reading of speeches and I think all will agree that the rule was more closely observed thereafter. I find however that there is a tendency in this debate to read speeches. It would be very obnoxious for the chair to interrupt hon. members who are reading their speeches and I think this is a matter which the hon. members of the house should observe strictly. I therefore request the assistance of hon. members in that regard.

I need hardly state again what I said in the last session regarding important statements made by ministers on government policies which have been and may be read. The same also applies to statements of policy made by leaders of parties or chiefs of groups in the house; but when these statements are not important pronouncements the rule regarding reading speeches should be followed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I assume the

matter to which you have adverted is not debatable, but may I be permitted to make one or two observations with respect to the ruling?

If I gathered correctly what was said, your ruling is based on the principle of expediency and necessity, not on the strict interpretation of the rule. I should like to have it on that basis rather than to have it recorded as a precedent to be followed in the future.

Let me suggest to what point the ruling may lead the house. The Minister of Agriculture, who spoke yesterday, spoke in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture. But the Minister of National War Services is the same gentleman. Is he to have the opportunity to speak twice in the same debate, but in different capacities? It will be seen that if we follow the ruling through to its logical conclusion it might land us in a miasma of difficulty. I should hope it would be the consensus of hon. members that all these gentlemen should be allowed to make statements of length such as may be necessary

to permit the government to present its facts. However I should rather put it on the ground of courtesy than on that of a strict ruling from the chair.

With all respect I suggest that we ought not to extend the rule beyond what might be considered a proper interpretation.

Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, since this is such an important ruling may I be permitted to say a word on the point of order now under discussion?

I should like to remind the house that since 1927 conditions in the house have changed to a very considerable degree. I believe that will be readily admitted. But if these ministers are to be permitted to speak at greater length than the rule now allows it seems to me that some recognition should be given to the change so far as the opposition groups are concerned, and that in the broadening of the rule the leaders of other opposition groups should be accorded more latitude than is now allowed by the rule.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

The house will see the danger of opening the door.

Mr. COLD WELL:

May I say most respectfully to Mr. Speaker, for whom I have the highest personal regard, that I do not think it was within the province of a Speaker of the house to broaden the rule in any particular. I suggest if an interpretation of such a nature is to be made it should be made in the same manner as the rule was originally made, that is to say, by a committee of the house.

May I make one or two observations on the question of the reading of speeches? I agree with Mr. Speaker when he says that the practice is undesirable. But if six ministers of the crown are to be allowed to read their carefully prepared speeches, then I submit that private members ought to be allowed to prepare carefully their replies and read them.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I am and always have been entirely opposed to the forty-minute rule. I believe all hon. members should 'be allowed to express their views. I would point out, however, that there is one aspect of the issue which has not been touched upon. In his ruling Mr. Speaker said he felt it his duty to extend the power given to ministers of the crown in respect to a vote of want of confidence in the government. No one appears to have considered what constitutes such a vote.

I seem to recall that during the strenuous time of 1922-it may have been 1924 or 1925 -the government of that day did allow an amendment to the address moved by a member of the opposition to go through. It by no means follows that an amendment is

Rules oj the House-Reading Speeches

necessarily a vote of want of confidence in the government, unless a minister of the crown or the Prime Minister indicates that he shall so regard it, or unless it contains the specific words, "We move a vote of want of confidence in the government."

The amendment moved a few days ago by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), while it may appear to express a lack of confidence in the government, did not specifically state that it was a vote of want of confidence. My point is that that fact should be taken into consideration. Under the circumstances I do not think the ministers in question have any right to exceed the limits allowed under the rule.

Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):

In connection with the actual wording of standing order 37 it seems to me there is one point to which reference might be made. There is a distinction between a member and a minister not being bound by the forty-minute rule. First of all, with regard to private members the rule states:

No member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a minister moving a government order and the member speaking in reply immediately after such minister-

And so on. Those words would seem to indicate that the only private member who is not bound by the forty-minute rule is the private member who speaks in reply immediately after the minister moving a government order. Therefore only one private member would not be bound by the forty-minute rule. But the rule proceeds to say:

-or a member making a motion of "no confidence" in the government and a minister replying thereto.

It would seem to follow from the wording of the rule that the extension of the forty-minute limit is applicable not only to one minister but to any minister replying to a motion of "no confidence." Further, the extension applies to such minister, no matter whether he follows immediately after the motion of want of confidence or at any time during the course of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I suggest respectfully that your ruling is not based upon any ground of expediency, but rather that it follows as a matter of legal and proper interpretation of the standing order itself.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in hearty accord with what has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). However, considering that we are not all parliamentary experts, I was wondering if it would be asking too much of you, sir, to reserve

your decision on such an important and complicated matter until after this present debate on the address.

I believe that in this particular debate hon. members should be given a reasonable latitude. I think we have been very fair with the government since the commencement of the war in trying to facilitate government business, and have perhaps not said some of the things we would have lilted to say. If you, sir, could see your way clear to reserve your decision until after this .present debate is concluded, it would be more pleasant to those of us who sit on this side of the house.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise not to debate either the rule or the interpretation which Your Honour has placed upon it. If that is necessary, perhaps another time would be better. I rise rather to point out why I think the interpretation which you, Mr. Speaker, have given is one which is eminently wise and wherein it should receive general approval by hon. members of this house. I feel certain that it will be generally approved by the people of Canada.

The purpose of calling this session at the present time was to enable the government to inform the opposition and the country of Canada's war effort. That is why we are here at this time. No one was stronger in urging that parliament should meet in November rather than in January in order that hon. members might be informed of the progress of Canada's war effort than the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell).

Mr. COLDWELL:

I am not objecting to the extension being given to the minister; I think it should be done.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that, because it accords with what I wish to say. Nor did I understand the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) to be strong in his objection to the interpretation given by the chair. However, my hon. friend did say that he thought the government ought to be allowed this latitude in order to defend itself; he used the word "defend". May I say that we have nothing to defend in regard to our war effort.