Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I had rather
assumed that in the absence of this notice the government would have been disposed to give a few days to the discussion of private members' motions. I know the practice we followed in the previous sessions of this parliament. At the first session we were all very much obsessed and upset by the course of the war and I agreed to the waiving of the rule at that time. At the second session the Prime Minister urged the same reasons for such a motion, and now after almost a month or four weeks of this session, private members, in the absence of any notice to the contrary, had assumed, I think, that some provision would be made for discussion of their motions. My hon. friend the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) has a motion on the order paper which he is prepared to discuss on Monday, and which in the absence of this notice he had the right to assume he would be within his rights in presenting to the house. I do think that the Prime Minister should not press this motion to-day but leave at least one day open for the discussion, of private members' motions. It is not very much to ask for. I do not see how otherwise we could get consent to this motion being brought down at such a late date. I would ask the Prime Minister to let private members have at least one Monday.
Subtopic: PRECEDENCE FOR GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ON AND AFTER MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23