Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker: I should like to submit to the house a motion which has to do with the business of the house and of which notice is to be found on page 38 of Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day. It reads:

That, except on Wednesdays, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair at six o'clock p.m. until seven-thirty, and shall adjourn the house at ten-thirty p.m. without question put, unless the closure rule (standing order No. 39) be then in operation, this order to be in effect until and upon the last sitting day of the month of April.

In making this motion I do not submit it as a recommendation to the house. As hon. members know, the motion under which we now sit in the evening from seven-thirty until ten-thirty has to do only with the period during which the address in reply to the speech from the throne is under discussion. If at the conclusion of this debate there were no motion before the house to continue these hours of sitting, the house would automatically revert to the eleven o'clock rule. I have heard comments on both sides, some as to the advisability of reverting to the eleven o'clock rule, and some in favour of continuing for a further period with the ten-thirty hour of adjournment. For the purpose of allowing the house to make its preference known in that regard, I am submitting this motion.

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, at the time the earlier motion was presented I made an observation which I repeat now. There have been long-established practices as to the hours of sittings of this house, and it seems to me that if they are to be changed they should be the subject of discussion among representatives of the different parties to the end that more satisfactory hours be arranged than those which obviously are not entirely satisfactory to most hon. members. It seems to me that that is a simpler method of dealing with the matter than this slipshod practice which does neither one thing nor the other. It makes the

dinner recess half an hour shorter and the final adjournment at night half an hour earlier. It does not diminish the non-attendance at the opening of the evening sitting, for the obvious reason that there are many hon. members who have more to do than eat between the time the house rises at the end of the afternoon and the time it reconvenes after dinner.

It seems to me that the more the hours of this house are made to accord with the necessity of doing certain work in our offices as well as fulfilling ordinary requirements, to say nothing of retaining some measure of social contact outside the house, the better it will be for everyone and the better it will be for the attendance in the house. Instead of adopting a compromise between something and nothing-which is all this motion amounts to-it would be much better if the house met at two o'clock, adjourned at six, reconvened at eight and adjourned at ten. If the house would give me the opportunity of putting it in written form, I would move by way of amendment that after debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is concluded the house meet at two o'clock, adjourn at six, reconvene at eight and adjourn at ten.

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):

In

view of the divergence of opinion represented by the motion and the suggested amendment, I think what should be done is to accept the original proposal of the leader of the opposition, and have a discussion among the representatives of the various parties in the house. I am not in favour of either of the proposals made today, and to vote suddenly on them is not the way in which to settle the matter. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the motion be held over for a day or so in order that members may think about it.

Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):

I have not changed my view since the matter was first discussed in the house by the Prime Minister some ten days ago. I still think a committee should be set up to discuss the whole question and bring in a recommendation which will resolve all the various opinions into a resolution acceptable to the house. If the Prime Minister desires to proceed with his motion today, I am afraid I shall have to support the amendment of the leader of the opposition.

House of Commons

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

a backbencher may enter a discussion among the leaders of the various parties- I lead my own party-may I say that I do not approve the motion. I understand it is not a government measure. If there is to be an amendment-and I hate to be in accord with the leader of the opposition or the leaders of the other two parties-I think we should go all the way. Why not consider the maritimes and the western provinces? Let us sit on Wednesday evenings, and, so far as I am concerned, Saturday as well, and finish the session. If the motion is not a government measure I do not think it should be proceeded with at this time. I suggest that an amendment be introduced to provide that we sit on Wednesday evenings, and let us finish the session.

Mr. St. Laurent:

I do not want to insist upon having the motion put, but it is apparent that if we have a committee there will be as many divergent views expressed as there were last year, and the result will be no change. 1 have no objection to that, because I am perfectly willing that the present standing order be applied. I felt, however, that it was only proper, in view of the experiment that had been made, that the members be given an opportunity to express their preference in the matter. If it is desired that the question be held over until tomorrow, I have no objection. If it is the desire of the house that the standing order apply, I shall be satisfied. My only purpose was to try to meet the desires of the greater number in the house. But I do think it is only fair to be realistic, and to admit that if we set up a committee we shall simply be going back to the standing order which has been in effect for a long time.

It is immaterial to me whether the motion be dealt with now or be allowed to stand until tomorrow. I think that the setting up of a committee would have the same result that was reached last year: we would not be able to bring in an agreed recommendation for a change. That might be the better result. We have the standing order, and unless there is an overwhelming desire to change it, perhaps it should be adhered to.

Mr. Low:

How does the Prime Minister feel about the two o'clock proposal?

Mr. St. Laurent:

The two o'clock proposal would create extreme difficulty for the cabinet. We have to meet in council every day at two o'clock. That has been going on since the first day of the session. It would be difficult to substitute the hour between ten and eleven at night for the hour we now use, between two and three, for the purpose of dealing with the business of the government. 1 have not

consulted my colleagues, but I believe it would interfere with the proper and expeditious conduct of the business of government if the house were to meet at two o'clock instead of three. We shall never get 245 minds in agreement, and if we set up a committee there will not be agreement. We have at least had agreement in practice under the standing order and it may be best to leave it as it is. If it is the desire of the house that the motion be withdrawn, I am prepared to withdraw it, because I put it forward not as my view but for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the members of the house.

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that, without formally appointing a committee, the whips of each party might meet? From some of the comments made as to different hours of sitting, it is obvious that there is a divergence of opinion. It is possible that as a result of the experiment which has been made some new views may be indicated. The Prime Minister has stated that two o'clock would be an inconvenient hour for the house to meet in the afternoon. After all, it is the business of the house to decide its own affairs, and that should be done with recognition of the problems of the government and its administrative responsibilities. I would point out, however, that the House of Commons of Great Britain, which also has very heavy responsibilities, meets even earlier, and they adjust the hour of meeting of their cabinet council. It would seem that the time might be so adjusted here. This suggestion would approach the matter with some sense of reality. At the moment I do not think the present practice accomplishes anything, except to provide a disturbing break in the dinner hour, and not a very conclusive advantage at the end of the day. I suggest that the whips meet before tomorrow and see if any general opinion is taking form.

Mr. St. Laurent:

That is quite agreeable to me. I would remind the leader of the opposition that there is no dinner adjournment in the British House of Commons.

Mr. Drew:

I know.

Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):

I

do not think this is a matter that the whips can settle. They may be good whips, but they cannot meet all the private members and find out what their opinions are. 1 suggest to the Prime Minister and to the leader of the opposition that the matter be allowed to stand until Thursday afternoon. In the meantime the caucuses of the various parties will have been held, and this is a proper subject for them to discuss. This proposal will not interfere with consideration of the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition or the motion of the Prime Minister.

Mr. SI. Laurent:

Perhaps we might leave

it until tomorrow. It may be that tomorrow we shall wish to accept the suggestion of the hon member for Vancouver East and put it over until Thursday.

Motion stands.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

I wish to make an

announcement to the house in regard to the oats and barley equalization fund for the year ending July 31, 1948, as administered by the Canadian wheat board.

The final accounting in regard to these two funds has now been completed. After allowing for payment expenses, the surplus in the 1947-48 oats equalization fund is $4,269,706.84, and the surplus in the 1947-48 barley equalization fund is $4,402,527.75. On the basis of 1947-48 producers deliveries, as reported to the board by handling companies, the per bushel payment on oats will be 5-881 cents, and on barley 6-780 cents per bushel.

These payments will be made in two parts. Cheques to individual producers delivering oats and barley to country elevators or authorized dealers from August 1, 1947 to

October 21, 1947 have been prepared and will be distributed through elevator companies commencing on March 7, 1949.

Delivery records for this period were already in the hands of the board, since the board made the dominion government payments of 5 cents per bushel on oats and 11 cents per bushel on barley applicable to deliveries of oats and barley during the period when price ceilings were in effect.

The board now has on hand the record of deliveries from October 22, 1947, to July 31, 1948. Cheques covering oats and barley deliveries during this period will be written at an early day and distributed to producers through the various elevator companies.

As the collection of equalization fees on exports of oats and barley was discontinued on August 1, 1948, the present payment will represent the last distribution of oats and barley equalization funds.

Hon. J. A. MacKinnon (Minister of Mines and Resources):

On March 2 the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) asked for information on a certain route of the trans-

Ministerial Statements Canada highway which I believe he said had been recommended in the early thirties by the federal government and by the different provinces.

From the information available in the department I cannot find any record of the federal government having designated a coast-to-coast route, or of the provincial governments having designated complete or continuous routes in the provinces during the period mentioned by the hon. member. Between 1930 and 1939 various provinces selected certain sections of their main east and west roads as part of a trans-Canada highway when requesting financial aid from the federal government under unemployment relief acts for main road improvement.

I understand that the sections of road designated by the provinces were generally along the main east and west roads as then established across Canada, and beginning at Nanaimo on the west coast the route went through the following cities or towns: Victoria, Vancouver, Kamloops, Revelstoke, Golden, Banff, Calgary, Medicine Hat, Moose Jaw, Regina, Brandon, Winnipeg, Fort William, Schreiber, along the north shore of Lake Superior to Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, North Bay, Pembroke, Ottawa, Hawkesbury, Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec, Riviere du Loup, Edmundston, Woodstock, Fredericton, Saint John, Moncton, Amherst, Truro, New Glasgow, Antigonish, Port Hawkesbury, and Sydney.

Federal assistance to the provinces on the above route is totaled at some $28,650,000. I wish to add further that this material has not been depended upon in any consideration recently given to the matter of the trans-Canada highway.