Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

I rise on a question of privilege. In this morning's Montreal Gazette there is an editorial dealing with the speech made in this house two days ago by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The editorial includes this sentence:

When he-

The reference is to the hon. member for Moose Jaw.

-recommended one tax cut, a fellow C.C.F. member exclaimed: "Over my dead body!"

I am sure all members of the house-

You said that years ago.

Mr. Knowles:

Hon. members are confirming the point I wish to make as a question of privilege. My offer of my dead body was in opposition to the means test being applied either to the family allowance or to the old age pension. I may say, too, on my own behalf and on behalf of the members of this party, that we favour a reduction in the personal income tax, particularly for those in the lower income brackets-

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Knowles:

-but we are opposed to any reduction in corporation taxes.

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):

I should like to make a brief statement with respect to the lifting of the United States embargo against our livestock, meat and hay. Most hon. members will have read in the press or heard on the radio yesterday's news report from Washington indicating the early lifting of the embargo in so far as hay from eastern provinces is concerned. It will be remembered that on November 28 a news report came from Washington which was interpreted to mean that the embargo against livestock, meat and other products affected, would be lifted on March 1, 1953.

The announcement said: "If present favourable conditions continue Canada will be declared free of foot-and-mouth disease on March 1, 1953".

Since the statement did not actually say that the embargo would be lifted on March 1, and because we had maintained frequent contact with the United States authorities and had reason to expect that the embargo against some products at least might be lifted at an earlier date than March 1, we refrained from making any public comment pending further discussion with the United States authorities.

Shortly afterward I arranged to meet Secretary Brannan in Washington and actually did meet him on December 5. I can tell the house that the meeting was most favourable, that I was assured that the United States authorities regarded our measures for the eradication of foot-and-mouth disease as being wholly effective, and further that they are anxious to see normal trade in livestock, meat and other products affected, resumed as soon as possible.

After my visit to Washington, the acting secretary of agriculture published a notice in the federal register expressing the intention of the department to lift the embargo against Canadian livestock and meat and stating that representations on the proposal would be received from the public until January 16.

As I mentioned a moment ago, yesterday's news from Washington has been taken by some to mean that the embargo had actually been lifted in so far as hay originating in eastern Canadian provinces was concerned. According to information we have from Washington, that is not exactly the case. Yesterday the department of agriculture in Washington posted a public notice to the effect that hay for use as feed would be allowed to enter the United States from eastern Canada after the publication of the official notice in the federal register. We understand that the official notice may be published within a matter of a few days.

While no assurance whatever can be given as to what, if any, further action the United States authorities may take to advance the date of the lifting of the embargo, I think the house will agree that the steps already taken by the United States government are most welcome and support the view that further steps may be taken before March 1.

Mr. Speaker:

There is a motion under the name of the Prime Minister respecting the hours of sitting which can be proceeded with now or when government notices of motions are called.

Now.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister) moved:

That on Monday, December 15, 1952, and every sitting day thereafter until the debate on the motion for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session has been disposed of, the house shall meet at eleven o'clock a.m., and shall continue to sit until eleven o'clock p.m.; and that in addition to the usual intermission from six to eight o'clock p.m. there shall also be an intermission from one to two-thirty o'clock p.m., and that the provisions of standing orders 2, 6 and 7 be suspended in relation thereto.

He said; I might just say a few words at this time. We have now had 106 speeches during this debate, which means that about 150 members, or perhaps more, will be entitled to speak. I do not think any of us wishes to curtail the debate in any way. To me it has been an excellent debate and

I think any hon. member who wishes to speak should have an opportunity to do so. On the other hand, a great many members, particularly those who live some distance away, are anxious to make arrangements for returning to their homes before the holiday. I think I can say that if the debate should come to an end on Wednesday we will adjourn on Wednesday, and if it continues beyond that day we will adjourn on the day on which the debate ends.

The hours suggested from 11 o'clock to

II o'clock are the old hours pertaining to morning sittings. I think it could be understood that if we had had a good day up until ten o'clock and if a speaker finishes on or after that time, a motion to adjourn would then be supported by the house. But I, think it should be left to the house to decide how soon after ten o'clock the house will adjourn. In any event, the proposal of the motion is that the house shall adjourn at eleven o'clock.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Acting Prime Minister for meeting in part the point about which I was getting to my feet a moment ago. I am happy to support the motion in so far as it provides for morning sittings during the remainder of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I offer that support because I was a member of Your Honour's committee on procedure which

wrestled with this question of hours and which made the recommendation that if the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne lasted more than a week we should establish morning sittings.

However, I am disturbed-although my concern has been lessened somewhat by what the Acting Prime Minister has said just now-by the fact that this motion calls for the house to sit until eleven o'clock in the evening. I think it should be put on the record that the recommendation made by the committee in this regard, to be found on page 602 of Votes and Proceedings for June 27, 1952, reads as follows:

Your committee also recommends that, without amending the standing orders, consideration should be given by the house at the beginning of next session to holding morning sittings during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, starting approximately a week after the opening of parliament, subject to the suspension of said morning sittings if the debate on the address is interrupted for other business.

I point out that when we made that recommendation there was no suggestion that the sitting hours should be extended beyond ten o'clock at night. I think it is fair to say that not only the committee but the house as a whole wrestled with this question of the proper hours of sitting for two full sessions and we are all quite satisfied with the hours that have been arrived at, namely, 2.30 to 10 o'clock with the usual intermission.

I think all of us, particularly those of us who have had years of experience with the eleven o'clock closing, find that the ten o'clock closing hour is much better all round. Accordingly it seems to me we should not try to carry this house past ten o'clock at night. I welcome the suggestion which the Acting Prime Minister has made that it might be that we will adjourn at ten o'clock every evening despite the terms of this motion. I hope that in future even the possibility of going on to eleven o'clock will not be included in the motion because it seems to me that it would meet with the spirit of the committee's recommendation and with the will of the house generally if it were established that ten o'clock at night is late enough, bearing in mind that for most of us our day starts at nine o'clock in the morning.