Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Spadina):

I wish to present the third and final report of the special committee appointed to consider the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, in relation to the taking of the vote of the armed services. May I suggest that the reading of this report be dispensed with, as both the report and the schedule will appear in Votes and Proceedings. The report itself is short, but the schedule is quite a lengthy document.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I think we can come to an agreement with respect to that, provided 100-153i

that no concurrence is moved to-day and hon. members in the meantime will have an opportunity of reading the documents.

Mr. FACTOR:

There will be no concurrence asked for to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER:

It will appear in Votes

and Proceedings.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Acting Prime Minister):

I should like to make a brief statement with regard to the matter of housing which is forecast in the speech from the throne. An announcement will be made in due course regarding the scope and the purpose of the programme, but I want to say now that it is proposed that the measure will be wide enough to include special provision for houses which may be required to accommodate dependents of members of the forces for whom housing accommodation is not otherwise available. It is expected that this particular class of house will be dealt with along the lines of the procedure adopted concerning houses built under the Wartime Housing Act, certain of which were, in special instances, allotted to city and municipal authorities to be administered by them for the relief of dependents of members of the forces urgently in need of housing accommodation.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house. It is the same motion as the one I asked leave to move yesterday.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member yesterday sent me a notice of his motion, which reads as follows:

Mr. Church asks leave to move, seconded by Mr. MacNicol, the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the urgent need of houses in the city of Toronto and other places in Canada and for the purpose of calling the attention of the government to the urgent need of immediate emergency measures relating thereto.

Naturally, when a motion such as this is before the house, moved by an old parlia-

H ousing

mentarian, and, if I may say so, one of the most highly respected members of the house, I have considered it with care, and with more particular care because of the fact that before such a motion can be put to the house there must be a degree of urgency to justify me in doing so. In the motion before me I cannot find that degree of urgency.

There is a motion on the order paper standing in the name of the hon. member for Broadview which deals with the question of housing, which in the ordinary case, if these notices of motion had been dealt with as they have been in previous sessions of this parliament, might not have been reached. But when the hon. member introduced his motion I recalled that some statement of policy had been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with regard to the legislation which was to come before the house. On the 24th of April last the Prime Minister, at page 2282 of Hansard, indicated the legislation which would come before the' house, among which he mentioned national housing legislation; and to-day I heard for the first time, as the hon. member has heard, the statement of the acting leader of the government (Mr. Ralston) that legislation with regard to housing will be brought into the house, and it will then be discussed.

I must therefore rule that there is not that degree of urgency in the motion to justify my putting it to the house, because the hon. member will have the opportunity of discussing housing when the bill is before the house.

Again, there is this feature, that the hon. gentleman may bring up the subject of housing op the motion that the house go into committee of supply. I must therefore rule that there is not the degree of urgency in the motion of the hon. gentleman to justify my putting it to the house.

Mr. CHURCH:

May I point for the consideration of Your Honour that the rule of anticipation is not relevant here. The rule about asking leave to move the adjournment of the house provides that the subject must not have been discussed in the house before during that session, meaning a substantive motion. There has been no substantive motion on housing. True, questions on housing have been asked, and there was some comment on housing in the debate on the address. The matter I wish to bring before the house is one of very great urgency, and I would point out to Your Honour that I have had no opportunity of bringing it before the house as an amendment to the motion for supply because

we have not had a motion for supply in the last few weeks. Surely this is an emergency question, and might I not have the leave of the house to speak on it for only a few minutes? I suggest that I be given five minutes to point out the urgency of the situation in Toronto. There are only forty-eight hours left in which to take action. That is the reason for the urgency.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Personally I have no objection to listening to the hon. member, but if I gave him the opportunity to discuss the matter I could not withhold the same privilege from other hon. members. I have carefully considered the motion of the hon. gentleman and I have come to the conclusion that there is not that urgency in the motion which would justify me in giving leave to discuss 'it.

Mr. CHURCH:

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that you have related this motion of mine to other resolutions. In view of that, I appeal from your ruling.

Mr. SPEAKER:

There is no appeal. Under standing order 31 I have already decided in this session, as well as in previous sessions, and my decision is confirmed by most of the Speakers who have had the question before them, that this is not a point of order which the Speaker has to decide. It is a matter for the judgment of the Speaker as to whether there is that degree of urgency which would justify him in putting the motion. I have already dealt with that. As a matter of fact, in order that this point may be made absolutely clear, although I think it has been made clear by the decisions which have been given by Speakers in former parliaments and by myself in this parliament, to remove all doubt the special committee on the revision of the rules has brought in a recommendation dealing with that very point. In the meantime there can be no appeal. It is not a point of order, but a question which lies absolutely within the discretion of the Speaker to decide.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted a word on this?