Mr. Warren:

You cannot continue all night.

Mr. Drew:

I was simply pointing out that the motion introduced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and which has been before us all day, is one that could have been disposed of long ago.

Oh, oh.

Mr. Drew:

I do want you to hear me, Mr. Speaker. We have been dealing not simply with a question as to whether we would discuss one measure or another, but whether or not this house was going to sit all night and consequently not only be unable to do a job tonight but unable to do the work of this house tomorrow. That has been the real issue before the members of this house.

Mr. Warren:

Why?

Mr. Drew:

May I in courtesy answer the question of the hon. member? I shall explain to the hon. member, since he asked me, that the reason is that there was a motion introduced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre this morning, and there was an amendment introduced in relation to that motion. The motion was under discussion until early this afternoon-

Mr. Warren:

Yes, all day.

Mr. Drew:

I wish to explain to the hon. member, and give him an answer to his question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I will hear the leader of the opposition on the point of order.

Mr. Drew:

I should like to finish my explanation to the hon. member in answer to his question. I shall just finish by saying that this afternoon, at a time when the hon. member was not here, there was another amendment introduced upon which a vote has recently been taken. That brings him up to date, except that the motion which has just been made introduced a further amendment.

Mr. Warren:

I was here.

Mr. Drew:

I am very happy to know that. Therefore we have brought the hon. member up to date on the proceedings.

When we come to the question of whether or not the motion is frivolous, may I suggest that this is a very late hour in the day to suggest that this amendment is frivolous.

Mr. Warren:

It is not late.

Mr. Drew:

I do regret that you are having so much difficulty in hearing this discussion. I shall wait until you are able to hear me without interruption. We have all day been discussing the original motion, and motions by way of amendment, which had to do with the time during which this house should sit today. Unless all the motions by way of amendment were frivolous, and that point has not been raised up to this time, then this motion must certainly not be frivolous. I say that because the substance of the motion is precisely the same, and there is simply a difference in time. The opposition is making an effort to co-operate with the government and find an hour that is agreeable to them. ' We are making that effort by a process of trial and error, or shall we say trial and refusal.

We now have before the house a suggestion that we should not, in view of the fact that we are approaching so close to the hour of ten o'clock, close off sharply at ten o'clock, but we should extend the time for another half hour. If members will accept this motion now, then they will have an opportunity to pave the way for an orderly discussion of the business which is coming before the house tomorrow. I suggest that unless any motion by way of amendment to set a time for the sitting of this house is regarded as frivolous, then this cannot be frivolous because the only difference between this and any other motion is that we have in our constant efforts to meet the wishes of the government-

Oh, oh.

Mr. Drew:

-introduced a new time in the motion, in the hope that the members would give it their approval.

Mr. Garson:

Mr. Speaker, if I may address just a few words to this point of order, I would point out that there was an amendment to the motion moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that this house should sit until 10.15. After debate on it at great length by a number of speakers from the official opposition, it was voted upon and defeated. The motion is now moved to add another fifteen minutes to the time which has already been defeated, and I suggest that under those circumstances this amendment is frivolous.

Mr. Knowles:

Perhaps the Minister of Justice will not mind if I say a word to correct what he said about the amendment moved by the member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). The minister was right as to the total number of minutes that amendment added to the normal day's sitting, but that amendment proposed to add fifteen minutes at 6.15 rather than at ten o'clock at night.

The Minister of Justice has drawn attention to the real point of this amendment, namely that it proposes something which, in principle, the house has already turned down; that is, a short extension of today's sitting. I draw your attention not only to citation 405 which the member for Mont-magny-L'Islet quoted, but to citation 413 which reads:

No amendment shall call in question a principle on which the house has given a decision by a vote on a former amendment.

By its vote earlier today the house turned down the usefulness of a fifteen-minute extension. The house has also turned down the usefulness of a two-hour extension. To come along now and propose an extension by half an hour seems to me, whether it is frivolous or not, certainly to call in question a principle upon which the house has already given a decision.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I shall give a ruling on the point of order. I must say that many things came before the house which, in my opinion, were fairly frivolous. In my view the amendment is not any worse than many of the other things that came before the house. At this stage of the debate I think it is preferable to allow the amendment to stay before the house.

Mr. Fulton:

What was your ruling, Mr. Speaker? We could not hear it.