that history to-day, hut as there are a large number of new members in this House, hon. gentlemen will probably bear with me while I make a very short summary of what I stated last year, following it up with a statement of what has occurred since 'that time along this same line. Daylight saving legislation has not been many years in force in any country. It is an example, probably, of one of the most rapid changes from a merely academic question to great practical use and benefit, through enactments in the law and practice of the countries in which it has been adopted. Without going into' the history of the agitation before the early enactments, it is sufficient to isay that the . first daylight saving legislation was passed in iGermany about the year 1914, the year of the beginning of the war. In 1916 it was adopted as an experiment in Great Britain, and put into operation for a period of between four and five months. After that experiment, a committee was formed to make a thorough examination of the effects. In France, in Austria, in Holland, and in about ten other European countries bordering on those communities, daylight saving legislation was put into force in 1915 and 1916. The British Parliamentary Committee formed to make an investigation, not only took cognizance of the effects in Great Britain, but continued and extended their investigations to these other European countries as well. Therefore their report covered the whole area of practical daylight service in 'legislation and in practice. That report was handed in during the late fall of 1916 or winter of 1917. It is now to be found in the records of this Parliament and can be referred to by any person. The report was an exhaustive one; questionnaires were sent out to all possible sources of authoritative information, embracing all classes of business and of general activities. The investigation was not confined to the economic effects of the measure, but also went into the effects of daylight saving upon the public health and public morals, its effects upon the schools, and generally almost every activity of life. After saying that the report of that committee -was entirely favourable to the reenactment of daylight saving legislation in Great Britain, I think it would be well to give two or three quotations from their report with reference to special phases of it, and I will trouble the House to that extent.
In respect to public health the delivery of the committee was in one section as follows:
We have devoted particular attention to the question of the effect of "summer time" on the health of children, and we have been glad to find that, in spite of certain statements which have been made to the contrary, the bulk of the evidence favours the conclusion that in the case of children also "summer time" has proved a success.
The committee made investigation with reference to public health and morals, and their conclusion is favourable along that line as well. As to the general workers interested, this is their statement:
The general view of employers, as expressed in the replies to the questiondires, was that their employees had taken full advantage of the extra hour's daylight; and while the majority were not in a position, with so short a period of observation, to state positively whether or not an improvement in health had resulted, a number had noticed increased vitality in their workers, and in some cases an improvement in the standard of the work. Only one or two employers recorded the appearance of any ill effects in the shape of tiredness and irregular time keeping. We have had evidence from all sources of the value of the extra daylight to the very large number of workers who cultivate gardens and allotments.
They conclude: *
Taking the whole of the evidence, we are satisfied that the great bulk of the working classes are favourable to summer time, and we are convinced that they stand to profit by it as much as, and in many cases more than, any other section of the community. Such real inconveniences as have been experienced will, we believe, be remedied with a little more experience of summer time conditions.
With regard to children's sleep, this is their utterance:
We are glad to be able to report, as a result of all the evidence which we have received, that while in a certain number of districts a tendency to shortened sleeping hours has been noticed, the fears which were entertained in the matter have not in the main been justified.
As to trade, industry and commerce, they conclude:
The comprehensive inquiries which we have described in paragraph 9 above, show beyond ail question that the opinion of employers in every trade, industry, and business throughout the country, is overwhelmingly in favour of summer time.
Economies in artificial light and fuel are thoroughly satisfactory.
Coming to agriculture, in regard to which more objections have been raised than with reference to any other branch of activity, they say: -
In spite of such difficulties as have been recorded, a very large majority of farmers and war agriculture committees are in favour of the renewal of the Act, and the majority even of those who are of opinion that it was not advantageous to agriculture consider that it should be renewed, as they recognize its great benefits to the community at large.
As to foreign countries, the committee reports upon France, Germany and Austria, and in the main, come to about the same conclusions as they arrived at from their investigation of conditions and effects in Great Britain. Summing up I will read the paragraph in which they conclude their report.
Taking the evidence we have received as a whole, we can unhesitatingly say that the vast preponderance of opinion throughout Great Britain is enthusiastically in favour of summer time and of its renewal, not only as a war measure, but as a permanent institution. As we have already pointed out, some difficulties have undoubtedly been experienced, but not to anything like the extent predicted by the critics of the scheme, and we have not heard of any that could not be overcome with good-will and organization. Indeed, the experience of summer time !in 1916 has converted many of its former opponents into hearty supporters. Moreover, as we have pointed out elsewhere, many of those who still hold the view that summer time may he prejudicial to their own interests admit that the general public advantages arising from it more than outweigh any inconveniences that may be caused in particular cases.
In a few years we believe that what opposition still remains to summer time will have completely disappeared, and that the whole nation will regard it as a wholly beneficent measure. We recommend, therefore, that summer time should be reintroduced in 1917 and in subsequent years.
It was reintroduced in 1917 in Great Britain, and Great Britain had an additional summer experience of its workings. It worked so well last year in Great Britain that this year they have put it into operation again, hut with an extension of the period, thus bearing testimony to their view of its advantages. On 24th March the clock was set forward one hour in Great Britain, and will remain set forward until 29th September, when it will revert again to the old position. That shows? then, the progress as resulting from experiment, then examination and report, and then another year of . experiment, insofar as Great Britain is concerned.
Coming to the United States, last year the Senate made a very thorough investigation into the whole question, taking in all activities, all associations, all societies, all forms of work in the United States. The Senate carried on that investigation for a number of weeks, and it was participated in by those who might be counted as speaking for the intelligent, forward-looking and enterprising people of the country generally. As a result of that investigation, the Senate not only recommended, but passed a Daylight Saving Bill. But it was in late June, 1917, when they passed it, and they came to the conclusion that at that late period of
the year it would .be better not to put it into force, and so they transmitted their Bill to the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives the Bill came up early in the year. It is worthy of special note that whilst the measure was under discussion in the House of Representatives two gentlemen appeared there in support of the measure, and even in favour of an extension of the time set in the Senate Bill toy adding a month at each end of the period. Mr. Garfield, Chairman of the Fuel Committee of the United States, and Mr. Hoover, Chairman and Director of food production and regulation in the United States, -were the gentlemen who appeared and made those pleas, one representing fuel conservation, the other food production generally. As a result, the Bill passed in the House of Representatives toy a large' majority; I think the vote was 252 to 40- you might almost say it passed unanimously. This was the decision after thorough examination of the subject and after hearing representative delegations from every industry and activity in all parts of the United States. If there is one thing more than another pressed forward in Great Britain to-day, it is production, and especially food production. The Daylight Saving law has been in force during two summer seasons and has now been placed a third time in operation. In the United States the two great questions are fuel conservation and food production. After full examination and after the results of that examination had been allowed to be canvassed for more than six months the House of Representatives, as I have said, made its own investigation and then gave the measure practically unanimous approval. The inference from these instances is plain, and I know it will commend itself to this House and to the Canadian people as well.
Probably it would be a good thing to read briefly from the report of the Interstate Commerce Committee which took the matter up first in the routine order in. the House of Representatives, examined it, and passed on their report to the House. First, I would refer to the general industries of the country. The United States chamber of commerce has a membership of about 450,000, has its affiliations all over the United States, and is probably the foremost and most representative business body or association of business men in the world. The chamber of commerce took this up before the agitation reached the Senate, and, through their organizations, obtained expressions of opinion from all the wide area