Mr. SPEAKER:

I have a statement I

should like to make to the house. Now that the debate on the address has been completed, I have been concerned with what I am sure has been evident to all members of the house, namely, the breach of the rule which deals with the reading of speeches. I would refer hon. members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at page 95, citation 293, which states:

Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:

(o) read from a written, previously prepared speech.

As long ago as April 19, 1886, a resolution was adopted by the house, which reads:

That the growing practice in the Canadian House of Commons of delivering speeches of great length, having the character of carefully and elaborately prepared written essays, and indulging in voluminous and often irrelevant extracts, is destructive of legitimate and pertinent debate upon public questions, is a waste of valuable time, unreasonably lengthens the sessions of parliament, threatens by increased bulk and cost to lead to the abolition of the official report of the debates, encourages a discursive and diffuse, rather than an incisive and concise style of public speaking, is a marked contrast to the practice in regard to debate that prevails in the British House of Commons, and tends to repel the public from a careful and intelligent consideration of the proceedings of parliament.

During the course of the debate members have been reading from manuscripts without

Precedence jor Government Business

regard to the rule, and all sides of the house have practised it. I think that I express the general sense of the house when I say that this practice is to be deplored. It is true that the debate just completed was very important, as hon. members are likely to be quoted thereafter for their attitude now, and in consequence they wish to have the written word before them rather than rely on the inspiration of the moment to find the proper expressions. I wish to intimate to the house that I shall have to insist upon members observing the rule. I realize the difficulty of enforcing it and the chair can only do so with the positive support of all members.

On a former occasion I agreed, and the house consented, that when important statements involving government policy are made by ministers on behalf of the government, such statements could be read rather than expressed extemporaneously. This practice is,

I understand, being followed in the British House of Commons and it has been extended here to include statements made by the official leader of the opposition, whose status is regulated by section 42 of the Senate and House of Commons Act, chapter 147.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer. That is standing order 37, which reads:

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 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.

The house in generous mood usually consents to an extension of this rule beyond the forty minutes. But I feel that hon. members rely upon the indulgence of the house to obtain extra time. It may be that some ministerial statements require a longer period than forty minutes, and it would be inappropriate and perhaps inadvisable that the rule should be applied to them Here, again, however, I think all such ministerial statements should be prepared in view of and be in conformity with the rules of the house. I must, therefore, point out that the Chair should not be placed in a position where discrimination is necessary and hon. members must realize that with every right to be heard in the house, such hearing must be subject to the rules of the house.

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

Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the 'house I should like to move the following motion:

That on and after Monday, the twenty-third of February, 1942, to the end of the present session government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all other business except the introduction of bills, questions by members, and notices of motions for the production of papers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had rather

assumed that in the absence of this notice the government would have been disposed to give a few days to the discussion of private members' motions. I know the practice we followed in the previous sessions of this parliament. At the first session we were all very much obsessed and upset by the course of the war and I agreed to the waiving of the rule at that time. At the second session the Prime Minister urged the same reasons for such a motion, and now after almost a month or four weeks of this session, private members, in the absence of any notice to the contrary, had assumed, I think, that some provision would be made for discussion of their motions. My hon. friend the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has a motion on the order paper which he is prepared to discuss on Monday, and which in the absence of this notice he had the right to assume he would be within his rights in presenting to the house. I do think that the Prime Minister should not press this motion to-day but leave at least one day open for the discussion, of private members' motions. It is not very much to ask for. I do not see how otherwise we could get consent to this motion being brought down at such a late date. I would ask the Prime Minister to let private members have at least one Monday.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I say to my hon. friend that this matter was raised1 at an early stage of the session and at the time I replied, as I recall it, to the effect that the arguments which had weighed with the Commons in previous years were even stronger this year, and I assumed that the house would so regard them. I must say that the government does so regard them. We believe that

732 COMMONS

Precedence for Government Business

the international situation is more critical at this time than it has been at any other time since the commencement of the war and that government business ought to be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, particularly that part of it which relates directly to the war.

Much has been said in the debate on the address about the time that must elapse before the plebiscite can be held. A month has been taken in debate on the address, in which private members have had the opportunity to speak on different matters, and if I were to meet my hon. friend's wish and have Monday next devoted to private members' resolutions, that would again delay the progress of the legislation with respect to the plebiscite.

I expect to announce a little later this afternoon that a secret sitting of the house will be held on Tuesday afternoon. I must say that I think hon. members will upon reflection see that there are strong reasons why the time of the house should not be taken up with a discussion of private members' resolutions until at least very considerable headway has been made with government business.

As to the particular request which my hon. friend has made in respect to one of the members of his party who had expected to speak to his motion on Monday, it will be recognized at once that were I to meet his wish, much as I might desire to, I would be discriminating against other hon. members who may equally wish to speak on their motions, some of which may even appear on the order paper before that of my hon. friend.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

No, his is No. 1.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Well, if we allow No. 1 to proceed, No. 2 will wish to have his say as well. I would ask the house to consent to the passing of this motion to-day so that on Monday we may continue with government business.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word. I agree with the Prime Minister that the house has had a very long debate in which a number of matters have been discussed thoroughly. I think now the country would expect us to get on with government business connected with the war. We should proceed without delay. But I do say this to the Prime Minister, that opportunity should be given to the private members to move their resolutions on the order paper, and I would suggest that, either by consent or by a change in the rules, time be allowed towards the end

of the session for private members to present and debate their motions. There are occasions during the session, too, when government business is not always ready for presentation to the house, and it might be possible on such occasions, if sufficient notice were given to members who have resolutions on the order paper, to allow them to be proceeded with I hen. But I would urge that all of us forego the particular matters which we wish to discuss that are not related to the war effort and that we make every effort to speed up the business of the house, which, I take it, at the present session will be devoted mainly to the war. So far as we are concerned we shall be glad to support the government in speeding up its efforts in that regard.

So far as resolution No. 1 on the order paper is concerned, we are very much interested in that motion, but I understand that a statement will be made regarding its subject matter, and may I suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) that it be made as soon as possible.

With these qualifications we agree to what the Prime Minister has suggested.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Mr. Speaker, I find that the hon. member for Rose-town-biggar (Mr. Coldwell) does not give me any support, and I certainly do not want to be the hold-out. I am not usually that type. I have just conferred with my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), and while he is anxious to debate his resolution he advises me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given an undertaking that the wheat question will be the subject of a bill which will be brought down, and debated in due course and referred, I understand, to the committee on agriculture. At that time he will have the opportunity which the moving of his resolution would have afforded him in the house. On that theory he is quite content to waive any rights he has. Of course, if notice of this motion had been given yesterday, we would not be having this debate at the moment. Rather reluctantly I am going to give my consent to the motion of the Prime Minister.

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

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the standing committee on printing, viz., Messieurs Bereovitch, Bertrand (Terrebonne), Blanchette, Bourget, Casselman (Grenville-Dundas), Castleden, Chambers, Chevrier, Clax-ton, Corman, Denis, Dubois, Dupuis, Durocher, Edwards, Emmerson, Esling, Evans, Ferland, Fleming, Fraser (Peterborough West), Furniss, Goulet, Grant, Green, Halle, Healy, Hlynka, Hoblitzell, Hurtubise, Kuhl, Leader, Mac-Diarmid, MacKinnon (Kootenay East), MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria), McGregor, McNevin (Victoria, Ont.), Mills, Moore, Muloek, Nicholson, Purdy, Rheaume, Ross (St. Paul's), Sinclair, Sissons, Soper, Tucker, Tustin, Weir, White, Whitman, Winkler and Wood, will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.