Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from two members notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation:

Of Clovis Thomas Richard, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Gloucester, consequent upon his acceptance of an office of emolument under the crown.

I accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Will the Secretary of State ascertain whether I might soon have the order for return which was passed by this house on November 28, 1951? It had to do with the five-day week in the government service.

Hon, F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):

I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):

I

should like to ask if the committee which was appointed last session to consider changes in the hours of sitting is still functioning, and when we may expect another report.

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

My impression, Mr. Speaker, is

that committees are appointed only for the session during which the appointment is made, and that if it is desired that this committee be reconstituted to consider the same matter, it will have to be done by resolution.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

May I ask

the Prime Minister if he would not consider reverting to the hours of sitting which were in effect when we adjourned at the end of the last session?-that is, if the committee

is not to be set up. I do not think we need a committee to decide upon that. I believe all members are agreed upon it.

Mr. St. Laurent:

This is not something for the Prime Minister to consider, but rather for the house itself to determine. The resolutions that were adopted had to do with the hours of sitting during the last session. Towards the end of the last session a report was submitted which was not acted upon. The report contained two recommendations, of which, I understand one was a unanimous recommendation, and the other was not. I inquired as to what the situation was in that respect according to the rules, and I was told that that report could not be dealt with unless a motion was adopted by the house to deal with it at this session.

I had a word with my hon. friend about the matter, and there are many who feel that it would be quite proper to adopt the two recommendations, but that to adopt only one would mean a shortening of the hours without anything being done to shorten debate. The other view is that nothing should be done to interfere with the present rule as to the time a member may take for his speech. The information I got from the table was that if we adopted a motion to consider the report, it would have to go to the committee of the whole. It was felt that if it went to the committee of the whole, a long time would be taken up in debate, and that the prospects of having anything constructive achieved were not particularly bright.

If we can satisfy ourselves all over the house that we could achieve something constructive by having a decision that this report be considered at this session and by referring it to the committee of the whole, I think we should all be glad to have something constructive achieved. But if we remain under the impression that we would merely have quite a long debate upon it in the committee of the whole, I do not think it would be proper to have that debate at this stage of the session.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might

be permitted to say a few words in connection with this matter, in view of the fact that it is one of concern to all hon. members.

It will be recalled that the arrangement which had been made temporarily gave to the members during the week two evenings which were clear and in respect to which they could make their own private arrangements. The

13S HOUSE OF

Inquiries of the Ministry other suggestion that was under consideration was that the length of debates be limited so that any shortening of time in the week would be compensated by the shorter speeches.

Mr. Cruickshank:

And speeches not read.

Mr. Drew:

It is quite clear that there would not be unanimity in regard to the latter suggestion-and not for the reason which perhaps is in the minds of some of the members. I think that inquiry will clearly establish the fact that other legislative chambers which conduct their business under rules similar to ours, and which have no time limit but have orderly planning of their business, carry on-

Oh, oh.

Mr. Drew:

I say this with the utmost seriousness. The laughter of hon. members in regard to this matter merely indicates that . they have overlooked the fact that the House of Commons at Westminster, which we follow to a considerable extent, has no time limit on speeches; but because of the planning of debates, and the indication ahead as to when the debates are to take place, it is able to do the extremely important business which is carried on there in a much shorter time than we do ours.

Mr. Claxton:

Because it has a timetable.

Mr. Whitman:

There are no filibusters there.