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

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to refer to a speech made in New York by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on-

Mr. Speaker:

It seems to me that this should be a question to the ministry when the orders of the day are called, rather than a question of privilege. Probably the misunderstanding has arisen because of the procedure I permitted at the last session, and for which I must take the responsibility. At that time there was no committee of supply and no committee of ways and means, and I allowed considerable latitude in raising questions of privilege and other matters at the opening of the sitting. I do not think, however, that I should follow that procedure at this session.

In my view we should abide by the rules in this respect, because under those rules there are ample opportunities to ask questions of the ministry and to bring up such matters as the one now indicated by the leader of the opposition. I think it would be more in keeping with proper procedure if we followed the rules as they are set out in the standing orders, and in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.

Mr. Drew:

Naturally I am in no way questioning the statement you have made, Mr. Speaker. I would point out, however, that I raised the question at this stage because of the practice which, so far as I know, has been followed ever since my coming to the house-which is not so long ago. That practice has been that ministers and others have dealt with questions of privilege at the opening of the proceedings. So long as we understand that any questions raised by way of privilege or having to do with important public business are to be raised when the orders of the day are called, at the same time as questions are asked of the government, then I think all of us will very naturally follow the same pattern. I assume we may accept the statement you have now made, sir, as settling the procedure in connection with matters of this kind; that

such questions, whether raised by ministers or others, will be dealt with when the orders of the day are called instead of at the opening of the proceedings.

Mr. Speaker:

I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not know that there is any provision in the rules for discussion of any question when the orders of the day are called. In the normal proceedings of the house there are opportunities afforded hon. members to raise important questions. At the present time the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is in progress, and in that debate important questions can be discussed. When the address has been adopted, I should think it is likely that there would be a committee of supply and a committee of ways and means; on the motion to go into committee these matters can be discussed.

I realize that there was a change during the last session, at which time I allowed considerable latitude. Probably I am taking the house by surprise today when I remind hon. members of the rule. As this is the first time the situation has arisen during the present session, probably I should allow the leader of the opposition to speak now.

No.

Mr. Speaker:

If it is not the wish of the house then, I suggest to the leader of the opposition that he raise his question when the orders of the day are called.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think hon.

members who are interested in this subject will welcome the statement by the Prime Minister that a procedure is now actually settled. I think that all of us who are aware of the very real gravity of the situation for some of these people will hope that interim payments can be arranged very quickly for some of the needy cases that are known to the government and of which many of us are aware.

Mr. St. Laurent:

As I stated, known

claimants for compensation resulting from death or personal injury have been informed and have received forms on which they can make application for interim payment if they feel their cases come within the rules, of which copies are available to them.

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

for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to readjust the representation in the House of Commons.

Mr. Knowles:

Explain.

Mr. St. Laurent:

When hon. members see the bill they will find that the preamble is in the same form as were the preambles to the bills which became chapter 54 of the statutes of 1933 and chapter 71 of the statutes of 1947. They will find that the statute recites that the results of the last census require, according to the constitution, that there be a redistribution of representation in this house. This is a duty imposed, not upon the government but upon parliament. I understand that the practice since confederation has been for the leader of the majority party in the house to take the initiative in bringing before the house a bill to carry out that constitutional obligation. This bill has been drawn in the form which has been in use as far back as I have been able to go.

It provides for the distribution among the provinces of the number of representatives provided by the rules fixed in the constitution. The representation within the provinces will be by electoral districts according to schedule. In accordance with the time-honoured practice the bill simply provides for the schedule and will leave it to a select committee of the house to draft the appropriate schedule.

The bill is being brought in at this time because it is felt, as it always has been felt, that it is a responsibility of parliament to deal with this matter immediately after the results of a census become known. This was felt to be such an obligation that even during the war, when there was a general feeling that it would not be proper to indulge in the controversies that sometimes arise over this matter, an amendment to the constitution was sought to authorize parliament to postpone until after the cessation of hostilities the consideration of a redistribution bill.

The bill is always brought down in the name of the government, but I feel it is more my responsibility as leader of the majority party in the house than as Prime Minister to introduce it, because it is not a matter for the executive government; it is a responsibility put upon parliament to determine something which is of particular concern to parliament.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.