Mr. MANION:

May I again interrupt my hon. friend? I am sure he will permit me, because I know he does not wish to be under a misapprehension. I remember the incident he speaks of; it was not with regard to daylight saving at all, but with regard to titles. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), I think, remembers that very well. It was with regard to the question of titles that I took that stand, not with regard to daylight saving.

Mr. VIEN:

I think my hon. friend's

memory does not serve him well. At any rate, I remember that Sir George Foster had a hard time to convince his own friends, and only by a long and laborious exercise could he summon around him sufficient support to have the measure introduced. My right hon. friend who now leads the Opposition was not at that time objecting to the measure. He thought then it was quite within the powers of this Parliament to enact such a measure.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Will the hon. member not permit a question? The measure was a federal measure of daylight saving, within the powers of the federal parliament.

It was no measure endeavouring at all to restrain the rights of municipalities. That is a wholly different question, and the hon. gentleman, as a lawyer, knows it as well as I do.

Mr. VIEN:

At any rate the questions involved were the same.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Oh, no.

Mr. VIEN:

The object was similar, and the principle underlying the measure introduced by the late government was the very same. The question was of introducing legislation to compel people to advance their clock one hour in order to save daylight. Now, in the province whence I come, daylight saving is repugnant to public opinion, for several reasons. In the first place, it is hypocritical, because you advance your clock one hour, you know that you do it, you know that your clock lies to you, and yet you go by that clock. In our province hypocrites of any kind are not well liked. Daylight saving is like a number of other measures-prohibition, for instance, of which my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Church) spoke a moment ago. Prohibition is repugnant to us because we do not like anything which restricts liberty, and prohibition does restrict liberty. It does not make men any better; it makes them hypocrites, and if I am well informed, it has not increased the number of saints in any province where it has been adopted, not even in that pious Queen city of Canada.

There was also another objection to daylight saving, connected with the patron of the measure, Sir Robert Borden. In the rural ridings of Quebec-and I am the humble representative of one of them-we used to distinguish standard time from daylight saving time by calling them respectively, "l'heure du bon Dieu," and "l'heure de Borden"-the good God's hour and Borden's hour-and we were opposed, of course, to Borden's hour usurping the good God's hour.

The measure was also repugnant to the rural ridings, at least-and I shall limit myself to speaking on their behalf,-because it was anti-liberal. The word "liberal" means freedom, and daylight saving is not a measure that makes for freedom. It is compulsory in its character, and founded on a lie. It rests on a false principle; it is anti-liberal; it is hypocritical in its character.

It is fraught with many other evils, so far as the rural population at large is con-

Daylight Saving

cerned. In the rural districts, at all events, you cannot advance the hour of sunrise by advancing your clock, yet your work must be regulated by sunrise and sunset. Even if you advance your clock one hour, the dew will not dry off the fields any earlier, nor until the sun has done its work; and those of us who have to engage city labour very often find that the city labourer likes to follow the hours he has been used to in the cities. He takes advantage of the fact that he has no work to do early in the morning under daylight saving time, and when the clock strikes six at night, when it is only five o'clock standard time, he wants to go home or get an extra hour's pay. In that respect, therefore, the measure is fraught with evil so far as the rural ridings are concerned.

Even in the cities, where daylight saving has been much advocated, it causes a great deal of inconvenience. Take the educational institutions, for instance. They have regular hours for opening and closing. The usual hour for closing is nine o'clock, because at that time it is dark and the children can go to bed and get to sleep immediately, but under daylight saving, if the children retire at nine o'clock, when it is really only eight, it is still full daylight and the children do not sleep. The personnel of the institution is consequently kept awake, but they have to get up in the morning no matter whether they slept on retiring or not. I know as a positive fact that that was a serious objection to the adoption of the measure in some of our cities. I know as a positive fact that our educational institutions object to daylight saving to-day because they contend they cannot compel the children to go to sleep in daylight, and they have a lot of difficulty in keeping them ruly and quiet.

There is the same objection from the mothers. They have to get up in the morr. ing at six, and if you advance the clock they are compelled to get up at five to prepare the meals and get the children ready for school. At night the children want to play in the streets as long as daylight lasts, and the mothers have great difficulty in getting them home and to bed at a proper hour. That also causes a great deal of inconvenience.

What is the reason for wanting this change in the cities? What is the cause of the whole trouble? As my hon. friend the mover of the motion (Mr. Kay) has pointed out it is to allow those who like to enjoy the evening hours to leave off work at an

earlier hour. There is nothing to prevent them doing that now, without daylight saving. Let them get up and go to work an hour earlier, and retire an hour earlier at night. It may be urged in reply, "If everybody would do that well and good, but you cannot compel your neighbour to get to his office at eight if he is used to getting there at nine. I would do it if everybody else would." I say that there is nothing to prevent the civic authorities of any city advancing their work one hour; there is nothing to prevent the banking institutions from advancing their opening hour, if they choose to do so. There is nothing to prevent the public bodies in any city or province from getting together and making an agreement that all the public offices shall open at a certain hour; but they should not compel their neighbour to do what he is not inclined to do or what will inconvenience him to a great extent. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because daylight saving is badly patronized, because it is hypocritical in its nature, because it is antiliberal in its compulsory character, and because it is attended by many evils and inconveniences for the cities as well as for the rural districts I am opposed to it and am strongly in favour of the motion. As the leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the resolution only seeks to express the opinion of the House; and if the Government finds it appropriate to introduce legislation along the line suggested, surely they will see to it that such legislation is confined to those powers which are within the purview of Parliament. For all these reasons I shall gladly support my hon. friend's motion.

Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) :

It is not my intention to debate the merits or demerits of daylight saving as a principle, but I find it difficult to appreciate the argument advanced by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien). He argues in favour of freedom. He says that if the clock is turned forward we are hypocritical -that the clock lies. Does he not know that whether we adopt daylight saving or not the clock lies all the time in most parts of the country? The clock as we have it in this Chamber does not exhibit the time according to the sun. It does so only at certain fixed places; so that that point, it seems to me, is not well taken. My hon. friend speaks in favour of freedom and refers to daylight saving as being a measure for compulsion. There is no law in this country to-day for daylight saving;

Daylight Saving

there is no intention to enact such a law. If there is anything compulsory in what is before us to-day it is the motion of the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) who would exercise prohibition, which is compulsion, and who would prohibit municipalities and others from adopting daylight saving if they wish to- a matter of local freedom, I submit. The hon. member for Lotbiniere declares that the province of Quebec is opposed to daylight saving. My hon. friend says that province is opposed to prohibition. That is the privilege of the province of Quebec. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere, after making his argument in favour of freedom, had said that he was opposed to the resolution as it stands on the Order Paper, then I think he would have been quite consistent. My hon. friend says there is nothing to prevent the city folks from getting up and retiring according to daylight if they wish without changing the hands of the clock. That is perfectly true. On the other hand it is just as true if applied to the people in the rural sections, because they can do exactly the same thing. I am not making an argument for or against daylight saving but I do contend, and in this I agree entirely with the leader of the Opposition, that this Parliament should not have the right to dictate to the people of any city, large or small, with regard to this matter. If the people of the city of Toronto, by a vote of nine to one, declare that they desire to observe daylight saving I do not deem it to be within the province of this Parliament to combat that desire. In my own city of Kitchener the people have voted upon this question and have declared in favour of daylight saving. I know that many of the farmers in the country districts in my riding are opposed to daylight saving; and I think their position would be quite well taken if they resisted compulsion on the part of this Parliament to the enactment of daylight saving. But there is no compulsion on them to observe daylight saving. If they desire to leave their clocks as they are that is quite within their right, and I for one am prepared to defend that right at any time. On the other hand, I think it is just as logical to say that if the great majority of the people of a town or city desire to put their clocks forward at a certain specified time upon the proclamation of the mayor it should remain their right to do so. I do not desire to be misunderstood. I am not arguing the relative merits or demerits of the principle but my point

is this entirely-that we should not interfere with a city or of a town if it locally desires to turn the clock forward one hour in the spring and to turn it back one hour in the fall. There is no compulsion in favour of daylight saving now; there should be no compulsion against it. For that reason I am opposed to the resolution.

Mr. L. H. MARTELL (Hants) :

I submit that unless there is uniformity in a matter of this kind it will tend to create a great deal of confusion. As an illustration of that, we have only to look at what the effect of the law relating to banks and banking would be under daylight saving. We find that the banks are compelled to remain open at certain hours of the day for the transaction of business. Now, let us suppose that in a certain municipality the clocks are put one hour ahead, whereas the farming population allow their clocks to remain at standard time. A farmer drives to town, having business to do with a bank probably in the way of meeting a note or something of that kind and, as he thinks, gives himself sufficient time to do so. But when he arrives at his destination he finds that the bank has closed for the day because the town is running on daylight saving time and doubtless the note he intended to take up has been protested owing to non-payment. I submit it is not in the best interests of Canada to have the towns, or urban centres, adopting daylight saving when it is not carried out in the country districts.

The leader of the Opposition has made a statement with respect to the relative * rights of the provinces and of the Dominion as regards the enactment of such a law. The right hon. gentleman is a lawyer of great standing in the country, and has been instrumental in placing many laws upon the statute books. I submit, however, with all due deference to the excellent legal acumen and ability of the leader of the Opposition, that it is a debatable point whether the provincial legislatures or the federal Parliament have the right to enact such legislation as a daylight saving act. In the legislature of Nova Scotia I remember it was a debatable question; and some two years ago, if I am not mistaken, a bill was enacted providing for the exercise by the Lieutenant Governor of such power as he might have, or which could be given to him by the legislature, to put such an act into force. Now, I maintain that this is a debatable question and was so held by the Nova Scotia legis-

Daylight Saving

lature; and when the leader of the Opposition tells us we are only wasting time by debating a question of the kind, that is only his individual opinion. We have had ad-dreses from one or two men who are probably equal to the leader of the Opposition in legal ability and they do not regard it as a waste of time to discuss such an important matter. The question is an important one, let us not get away from it. It is a matter which affects the people- those who live on the farms of the country and those who labour, in our industries. The only good thing that I can say of daylight saving is that it makes the farmer and the labouring man rise an hour earlier in the morning in order to enable the city people to put on their golf and tennis clothes and go out and enjoy the summer evenings. I submit that in the interests of the producers of the country it is fit and proper that we should debate a resolution such as this in order to get the opinion of Parliament; and I hope that opinion will be that the tillers of the soil, the men who bear the burden and the heat of the day shall have laws enacted in this country which will be for their welfare and not simply in the interest of an oligarchy.

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bona-venture) :

I wish to state on behalf of my constituents that they are unanimously against daylight saving. I have discussed the matter with them on various occasions, and they have refused to agree to the daylight saving proposition. The whole of the province of Quebec, the rural parts especially, and some of the towns, refuse to advance the clock, and it remains at standard time. This remark applies to municipal institutions, and so on. Of course, this action resulted in confusion generally throughout the province. The rural parts of Quebec are a unit against daylight saving. I had the honour to be one of the administrators of the city of Montreal, and, at the request of the commuters, who leave the city and go out to the country in the summer time, and the railways, we agreed to it, but the experience is not satisfactory. Later we received protests from all parts of the city. I know that in my own household I was very much blamed for having granted the request. I think that, under the circumstances, an expression of opinion from this Parliament would go a long way to 'bring back normal conditions, and if a vote is taken, after the experience I have had, I will vote in it vour of the resolution.

Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia) :

I wish to associate myself with the mover of the resolution and with hon. gentlemen who have supported the proposal which it embodies. I recollect quite well the actual experience when the former bill, which gives rise to this resolution, was introduced, and daylight saving was forced upon the people of Canada. Evidently the debate which took place in this chamber was very, very exhaustive, and many arguments had to be presented before Parliament would allow the resolution to pass. It seems to me that, when hon. members attempt to compare our conditions here in Canada with conditions in France, Great Britain and the older countries of Europe, the comparison is unfair. When daylight saving was introduced in the West and forced upon us, we, as agriculturists, living in sparsely settled districts, met with many difficulties. It worked to our injury as a class in the western country. I am not speaking simply for dwellers in rural districts, but for those in small villages and towns. Later on, it must have been recognized that evils did arise from that legislation, for a form of local option was adopted which permitted municipalities to exercise their choice in this matter. While local option did cure many of the evils existent at the time when the law was federal in its application, many of these evils still obtain in the country. Some of these have been cited in this debate. Others will occur to hon. gentlemen. A few of them were related by one of the members from Nova Scotia, and they obtain la'll over Canada. It seems to me this is largely a question between city dwellers and rural dwellers, because I have noticed that many of the urban dwellers can see nothing whatever except the idea of daylight saving, and endeavour to force their will upon the rest of Canada. It may benefit the people who claim the privilege of donning their golf clothes late or early in the afternoon; but it is a fact that we who dwell close to towns that in the exercise of their local option have adopted daylight saving, suffer inconvenience, in that often we find business places closed up when we get into the town, at an hour which is early according to standard time. It is no use for gentlemen to argue that it does not affect us, for it does affect us, and injuriously, too. It seems to me that if daylight saving were as beneficial as it is claimed to be, the business people Who now favour it would have initiated it years ago. But, in fact, they had to wait until some individual in

Daylight Saving

this House explained to them the benefits that would accrue to them by adopting the daylight saving plan. I do not know whether that Scotch poet, Harry Lauder, had daylight saving in mind when he said, "Oh, how I hate to get up in the morning."

Don't call him a poet.

Mr. GOULD:

It is certain he could not have had the "benefit" of daylight saving in his mind. Whether he spoke as a labourer or moneyed man or rural dweller, certainly the thought occurred to him; and I wish to associate myself with him, and, as one who has had to get up very early in the morning, object to any law to compel me to get up any earlier.

I wish to associate again myself with the sentiment expressed that we do not want any more laws which gives privileges to certain districts, but we want general universal laws. I think the sun rises plenty early enough for us. It was the idea of the Creator when the sun rose at a certain time that we should abide by that and conform to it. When we do that we will find that we have time for a full day's work and no more. I believe the sentiments expressed by those supporting the resolution are the sentiments of those people of Canada as a whole, and I am quite sure the people who have sent our little group down here would stand unanimously by the sentiments expressed in the resolution.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York) :

With regard to the point of order raised by one hon. member, I did not understand that the speaker ruled that a name had not been given when asked for. I believe the practice in the past has been-and I hope to see it preserved-that the name should be given when so requested. I do not believe there has been any change in practice. If a letter is read and an hon. member asks the name of the writer, I believe he is entitled to get it, and I do not understand the ruling this afternoon destroys that right.

Hon. MEMBERS:

Louder, Louder.

Mr. MACLEAN (York) :

I say that if a member asks for the name of the writer of a letter he is entitled to get it. The impression might have been left in the House this afternoon-although the Speaker's ruling would not justify any such impression- that we are not entitled to have the name, but I hope the right to have the name will be preserved.

In regard to daylight saving, I have not very much to say one way or the other, but I think we ought to have standard time in this country. A more important question is the one which has been raised in this debate: has parliament jurisdiction in regard to that question? The question in regard to measurement of time has been raised in a good many parliaments in Europe, as to the acceptance of the Julian Calendar. I do not know whether we would have the power to deal with the question, but the question is coming up in this House. I understand the feeling in Europe is in favour of its reform, and Cardinal Mercier had charge of the proceedings. These questions of time, while they have not been defined, perhaps, by the British North America Act, will have to be dealt with, and the reform of the calendar will have to be considered. We will have to do what they have been doing in the States, and in other countries, in the way of getting a standard time. We must have standard time in this country if for no other reason than that our railways are a national proposition; they are certainly within the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and it would, therefore, be a mistake if we had several kinds of time in this Dominion. Accordingly, we must have some standard time, and some legislature in this country must have charge of it. I believe this matter is well within the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and it is not wise to have local authorities changing the clock, because it is in the general public interest that our time be standardized. While I think there is good reason for the adoption of daylight saving, I am rather surprised that the farmers in this House have not expressed their views on the subject. I thought the main reason given for its adoption was that it was in the interest of the farmers; and if that is not the case, I think the House is entitled to have the information. Perhaps, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) would be prepared to express the opinion of farmers in regard to the matter. What I wish to say mainly now is that some legislature in this country ought to have charge of the time; that the law should be uniform, and that the time throughout the country should be standardized.

Mr. R. J. WOODS (Dufferin) :

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the resolution under discussion at the present time is entirely unnecessary. For this reason: I

am in touch a good deal with conditions in

Daylight Saving

rural districts and smaller centres such as villages and small towns, and so far as I can understand, public sentiment is at present so strong against daylight saving that there is not much danger of our small urban centres adopting it. They have found it detrimental to the best interests of business affairs in those small centres. Therefore, I have no doubt that what we have known in the past as daylight saving, which has been adopted in many urban centres, will very soon fall of its own weight, and we shall not hear very much more about it. .

Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton) :

Mr. Speaker, it does not appear to me that the question of the merits or demerits of daylight saving is under discussion. That was discussed in this House a few years ago; and we know that the rural sections of the Dominion are not in favour of it, and that some of the larger cities are in favour of it. The hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Woods) has just said that there is not much danger of rural municipalities and smaller towns adopting daylight saving, and I think the Government will be entirely unwise in passing any legislation prohibiting any municipality from putting daylight saving into force. I was surprised at an hon. member from the province of Quebec speaking in favour of prohibition. The people of Quebec are not in favour of prohibition. This is a prohibitory measure and we already have enough of prohibition in this country. We want no more of it in other lines, and it would be very unwise on the part of the Government to put on the statute books of this Dominion a prohibitory law with regard to something that is not in existence or in force at the present time. I am therefore opposed to the resolution.

Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona):

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing something that I deem much more important than some other things that we have been spending time on. I live in a district where we can read a newspaper at half past ten o'clock in the evening without any artificial light, so why should we want to save daylight? I am a farmer, and I know conditions that exist on the farm are such that daylight saving would not be of any advantage. We are supposed to be an agricultural nation; at the present time more than half of our population is on the land, and I should like to see more there instead of less. If we are an agricultural nation, I am quite positive that daylight saving is not to the

best interests of Canada. Some things have been said regarding disturbance of work on the farm, and I have heard hon. gentlemen state that the dew will not go off earlier in the morning even if you set your clock ahead. There is no difference with regard to that; but the loss of that hour in the evening makes a difference. When harvest time is on in my district, we are not very often able to go to work with a binder before ten o'clock, and if our men cannot be properly employed in the morning, there is a difference if we have to pay for the extra hour at night. We have a legal time in this country, namely, standard time. While I feel we have no right to say to people: "You should not set your clocks ahead;" I believe we have as good right to say that they can get up an hour earlier in the morning as they have to say that we must disturb our time by setting our clocks ahead. If the banks are closed when one gets to town, there is a difference, -it makes a difference whether the banks close at two or at three o'clock. It does not make the day any better to close the banks at two o'clock instead of at three. We have a legal time for children to go to school; our children are supposed to be in school at nine o'clock in the morning; and if that means eight o'clock instead of nine, we are interfering with what is already legal time as regards school hours.

There is no question that our work on the farm is more or less disturbed by having town time different from farm time. I live close to the city of Edmonton, and if I go into town and find that the stores have closed an hour earlier than they usually do, surely that makes some difference; it disturbs time. In a district where one has to work as long days as they do in that part of the country, we have daylight enough without setting our time ahead. Nature has arranged our time; we have to work with nature more or less on the farm, and if farmers in that district are interfered with, there is an interference with the advantage and benefit of the whole country. We are yet an agricultural country, and I do not think agriculturists anywhere in Canada are asking for the time to be set ahead. People who want to play golf and to have longer time in the afternoon can get up an hour earlier without disturbing us in any way. We do not object to their getting up earlier, but we object to having our time set ahead.

Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):

Mr. . Speaker, this discussion is somewhat pro-

Daylight Saving

longed, but the matter is an important one. I think, however, the wording of the resolution is a little bit unfortunate inasmuch as it tends to develop the debate along two lines. I think that opinion in Canada is against daylight saving, and if the resolution had been confined to that, I am sure there would have been very little opposition to it. But it involves the other feature, of a prohibitory action on the part of this Parliament in a field of doubtful jurisdiction. It does seem strange that we should attempt to prohibit a municipality from adopting daylight saving if in its wisdom it considers it expedient, in its particular circumstances, to do so. I think that the peculiar wording of the resolution has led to this conflict in the debate. If the resolution had been worded somewhat to the effect that in the opinion of this Parliament daylight saving should not be adopted unless it were made universal, then I think we could all agree with it. Great confusion and inconvenience undoubtedly arise because of the adoption of daylight saving in some localities and not in others. Speaking for the constituency I have the honour to represent, which is about half rural and half urban, I am well satisfied that the opinion is strong against daylight saving, and I sincerely hope that it will not be adopted in this Parliament. At the same time, I do not think that Parliament should go so far as to say that it will prohibit any municipality in Canada from taking action along a line which is perhaps well within its jurisdiction.

Mr. JAMES J. HUGHES (King's,P.E.I.) : No matter what some people may do with the hands of the clock, no matter what some municipalities may do, and no matter what resolutions some town councils may pass, the men and women who are engaged in farming and in rural occupations cannot leave off work early in the afternoon. They are compelled to work until late. They would be only too glad to quit early if thereby they could make ends meet under present conditions in Canada. For that class whom often, when we want to flatter them, we describe as the bone and sinew of the country, there is no daylight saving The tendency in Canada to-day is for people to leave the land and flock to the cities, and we believe that that is against the best interests of the country. We all say that, and I suppose we all believe it. One of the tendencies of daylight saving, one of its worst features, is to make young

men and women dissatisfied with farm life and rural conditions, and consequently to lure them from the farms and locate them in the towns and cities. This is one of the effects of daylight saving; it emphasizes the difference in conditions between farm life and city life. I think, therefore, that it was a very unfortunate thing indeed that the daylight saving fad was ever introduced in Canada,-because, after all, it is only a fad. If there are groups in the cities, such as golf or other sporting clubs,-or clubs of any other kind, which are of course, quite legitimate,-that desire to exercise the rights and privileges of citizenship and to arrange among themselves to play golf, say, in the afternoon, there is no reason in the world why they could not select any hour they please for this purpose instead of changing the hands of the clock. They could select four o'clock or five o'clock, or three o'clock, or any other hour that would suit them. But why act this childish part of pretending to ourselves that it is five o'clock in the afternoon when we know that it is not so? Those women of the country who have to do their own work, take care of their own households, prepare breakfast and other meals for their men folk, and after breakfast get their children ready for school, find it very hard indeed to rise at any early hour in the morning. Nevertheless, they are obliged to get up at six o'clock, and in some cases perhaps earlier; and it is an unwarrantable hardship to compel them to get out of bed an hour earlier than their accustomed time, simply in order to conform to a condition of things that is not real.

There is something else to ibe considered, and that is the effect of daylight saving on the convenience of farmers in their relations with the railway service. Throughout the country districts, I believe, the railway stations are closed about four o'clock in the afternoon, and the farmers find this too early, when they have to leave their work to transact any business at the station, either to deliver or take possession of freight. But if they find the stations closed at three o'clock their condition is so much worse. Whatever other people may do, I would ask the railways at least to observe the regular time, and try to manage their business in such a way as to suit the convenience of country people. I know that a great deal of hardship has been experienced by farmers who have driven seven and eight miles to get some special business done at the railway

Daylight Saving

station, only to find that the

5 p.m. station was closed five minutes before they arrived. Sometimes it happens that the station master is just closing: the place, and, as an hon. member suggests to me, refuses to do any more business. This is a matter that inconveniences a large number of. people. I repeat, the emphasis that daylight saving lays on the difference between country and city life tends to drain the farms of young men and women. Daylight saving is one of the things that tend to make the young people think that conditions in the cities are so much better than they really are, while it increases the feeling on the part of the rural population that they are supporting an idle and pleasure-loving class in the cities. I agree with the hon. member who immediately preceded me, that this resolution is badly drafted. That is unfortunate, because we can hardly support it in its present form, seeing that it interferes with the rights of others. At the same time, I am in favour of the idea of the resolution, and if it stated that in the opinion of the House daylight saving should not be adopted unless it were made nationwide, then I think it would pass. At any rate, I want to put myself right; I intend to vote for it, even as it is. But I would ask the mover of the resolution to change the wording of it, if he can do so.

Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert) :

Mr. Speaker, I hope that whatever form the resolution may take, it will not be adopted by the House in the form in which it has been proposed. It is a direct challenge to, a direct interference with, powers which under the British North America Act are sacred to the local legislatures. It may be that daylight saving has been dealt with by Parliament or the federal government on a previous occasion; if so, it would be only under the extraordinary circumstances of war, which seemed to give some extension of the federal power. Perhaps it did give such extension, and perhaps not. But take the case of my own province: there we have an act which makes the time of New Brunswick the time of the 60th meridian. It has the effect of giving daylight saving, if you will, for an average of about twenty-four minutes throughout the province. Certain municipalities adopt what they call daylight saving. There is no authority of law; they simply adopt it by resolution or by-law, and it binds no one except their own officials, but usually the community

rMr. Hughes.]

conforms to the wish of the local municipality in that respect. Now, the House is asked to adopt this resolution, and what would" the Government do if, in accordance with the resolution, it acted as it naturally would be expected to act? It would introduce a bill to prohibit the legislatures of the respective provinces from varying any form of standard time. That is an impossible thing; the Government could not, I should think, consider for a moment any such legislation. Now, this is not a question of party tactics; it is a question, I think, of the common sense of the House. If every member of the House would like the time to be in accordance with the meridian of the place in which he lives, what is the sense of asking Parliament to pass legislation which it is not competent to pass, forbidding the provincial legislatures to deal with a subject which is entirely within their jurisdiction? That is not the way to get at the problem; it is only a way to make ourselves ridiculous.