Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):

The members of this group, Mr. Speaker, would also like to associate themselves with the remarks made by the hon. member for Nanaimo. It can be truly said, I think, that the men who served in the first world war and the men of the veterans guard are Canada's forgotten men.

Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):

Mr. Speaker, speaking for the apex of the Liberal party, we would like also to associate ourselves with what has been said; only we hope that we shall have the same privilege of making speeches in favour of the veterans as has been accorded to the hon. member for Nanaimo.

Mr. LESLIE A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South): Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact you have permitted a debate on this question-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. I would call the attention of hon. members for the second time to the fact that I cannot permit a debate.

Mr. MUTCH:

I shall be satisfied, Mr. Speaker, if you will afford me the same facilities as have been accorded to other members.

Mr. HOMUTH:

Why don't hon. members over there yell "order" now?

Mr. MUTCH:

In the beginning I should have been content to allow the Minister of National Defence, in what I thought were well chosen words, to pay tribute to these men for me as a supporter of the party. But I have had some opportunity to serve with the men who are being disbanded today, and as a comrade of theirs in two wars, speaking for myself and everyone on this side of the house -if we are going to do it in this way-I wish to pay my tribute and to express the hope that in view of their doubly difficult rehabili-

tation they will have not only equal but special consideration. I am sure that is the hope of this house.

Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) moved:

That the second report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons appointed to continue and complete the examination and consideration of the Indian Act, presented to the house on Wednesday, March 26 last, be now concurred in.

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):

The acting leader of the government has indicated the position in which we find ourselves today as a result of the way in which our programme is printed in the routine proceedings. The procedure allows private members' business to have priority over government business. The minister has suggested that we reverse that order and put government business before private members' business. As he has indicated and as we all know, in order that the change may be made now, notice not having been given before, the arrangement must have the unanimous approval of the house.

Speaking for the official opposition, when requests of this kind have been made to us, as has been the case several times this session, we have raised no objection, and we raise no objection now. I think it only fair, however, to point out what the minister himself indicated, namely, that particularly during this session private members have been asked to make sacrifices, and there should be some recognition of the position in which they have been placed. We have no desire to take advantage of the technical position in which the government finds itself today. I do not think we should. And I do not mean to urge the government to grant any more concessions to private members than their judgment would suggest. But the minister has said that from now on the government is willing to move to go into supply each Monday. To that extent private members will be permitted to discuss questions they feel should be dealt with. I think that is a good suggestion, and I support it. It is an ill wind that blows no one good, so if the situation confronting us today is a little difficult, I believe some good may come out of it for the private members of this house.

We are agreeable to the. suggestion reversing the order of business today, provided that free discussion is permitted each Monday when the motion is made to go into supply, and provided that we are not denied the right to discuss matters mentioned in private members' resolutions, which under a narrow technical interpretation of the rules I understand might be denied us. I do not think that right should be denied. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that his proposal should not be limi-

Business of the House

ted to the period mentioned, but that he undertake that this motion be made every Monday from now until the end of the session.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

May I say that we too approve the suggestion of the minister, which I understand to be that on Mondays hereafter until these motions run out private members will have the right on going into supply to state any grievances or raise any questions they regard as of urgent importance. It is an improvement on the procedure we have followed in this house up to the present, and after trying it out we might consider making it a permanent part of our rules of procedure. We also approve the proposal to devote the usual hour from eight to nine o'clock on Tuesday and Friday evenings to private and public bills. That is something we appreciate, for it does give private members an opportunity of doing things which otherwise, under the resolution we have adopted this session with regard to procedure, they might not be able to do. Therefore I support the proposal of the minister and express the hope that we may be able to facilitate the business of the day by adopting it unanimously.

Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): The members of this group will be prepared to support the minister's proposal. I take it that on Mondays when the government does move into committee of supply, only one or not more than two departments at the most will be called. With that understanding we will certainly give our support to the suggestion.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I shall not ask to open more than two departments unless at the time I have the consent of the house to open more. With respect to the other suggestions that have been made, during the whole session Monday is a private members' day, and if we applied this rule during the whole session it would mean that Monday would not again become a private members' day; but that we can further consider. For the present all I am asking is that while -we are taking something from the private members on Mondays, we call supply as the first order of government business so that there may be an opportunity of airing any grievance that may have arisen.

Mr. MacINNIS:

The Mondays the minister has mentioned are the Mondays until April 28, or whatever date was mentioned by the minister; it was not the Mondays until the end of the session?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not beyond the time covered by the motion. We may have to

suggest that the motion be extended at another time, but if that were done another undertaking would be given.

Mr. BRACKEN:

May I ask the minister to comment on the suggestion I made with respect to the possible limitation of debate on this motion to go into supply? Are we to be denied the right to discuss matters which may be mentioned in resolutions now on the order paper, but which have not oome up for discussion? I think we should have the utmost freedom of discussion on Mondays.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not as well informed as I should be about the standing orders of the house. I was under the impression that we could not move the adjournment of the house to anticipate a discussion on something already on the order paper, but that on going into supply hon. members were not limited, and I would not like to see them limited, in anything they might feel it was proper to bring before the house at that time.

Mr. COLDWELL:

But is that not a matter for His Honour the Speaker? No member of the government can possibly commit the Speaker to something which contravenes the rules of the house. That is the way it stands, at least on the face of the rules.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: So far as I am concerned I shall be prepared to rely upon the sense of responsibility of each hon. member, at a time when there is urgent public business to be attended to, not to raise anything he does not feel is of sufficient importance to warrant taking the time of the house.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this discussion has been agreeable and pleasant, and the motion probably will be adopted unanimously, because the acting leadership of the house is different. We do not any more hear anyone being called "irreverentially impertinent", which was something rather tough in reply to the word "touchy." When one feels that he is the lord spiritual because he has been appointed right honourable, it cannot cause anything but trouble. The discussion today has been very agreeable, between humble men, some of whom have titles and others of whom have not, and it is rather admirable. Last year I brought the attention of the Prime Minister through Hansard-I did not do it in any other way-to the fact that it was quite i ecessary to change the acting leadership of the house, and now that it has been changed

Business oj the House

we are at peace. I hope the acting leadership will remain under another sky for a very long time.

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) referred to the possibility of 'having a trial of this proposal. I do not want to take much time just now, but I should like to bring up a matter which has to do with the business of the house, and I think this is the appropriate time to do it. At the risk of being accused of having repeated something I said on Friday night I want to say that I feel keenly about this. Will the government consider making an experiment after we return from the Easter recess with a view to changing the unearthly sitting hours with which we now have to put up and arriving at something that would be more satisfactory? If we sat every sitting day of the week from one o'clock in the afternoon until seven o'clock in the evening it would give us three more hours of actual time for debate. There would be no question of reducing the hours of sitting; it would simply be a matter of trying to find a more convenient and satisfactory, and shall I say a more humane arrangement for the House of Commons. I should like the government at least to try it out; if it did not work, no great harm would be done. After the Easter recess I suggest that for the first week the government consider sitting from one o'clock until seven to see if the proposal I am making will not -work out in the interests of all concerned.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I can assure the hon. member that the government will give serious consideration to the suggestion he has * made and will endeavour to have it considered by the chairmen of the special committees set up by the house to see if it will be possible still to have time to do that part of the business of the session which has to be attended to by the select committees. The select committees might have to meet somewhat earlier than eleven o'clock if the house were to meet at one. I think that is an aspect of the matter that should receive consideration. I can assure the hon. member that if arrangements can be made which will be more conducive to the convenience of hon. members and will allow the work of the session to be accomplished, it will be a great pleasure to me personally.