I appreciate the spirit
in which this debate has been carried on, and the pertinence of all remarks anent the question raised. I cannot fail to express my surprise that the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) should have so utterly failed to grasp the principle at stake as to seek to cover the discussion over with a lot of irrelevant talk about how long the debate should continue. The question is this: Is advantage to be taken of an inadvertence on the part of the Chair-because it is there that the inadvertence occurred-to shut off the speeches of hon. members? If the debate is to be discontinued, I have a higher opinion of the House than to think that this will be done because some hon. members who have spoken do not want to listen to those who have not. I should have preferred the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to concur with the Deputy Speaker in the understanding that he was to move the rescission of the
Business of the House-The Address
motion which has been agreed to. The Prime Minister has stated that he is ready to do so if the Speaker holds this to be proper.
Subtopic: PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY INADVERTENCE
Sub-subtopic: EXPUNGED-DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS CONTINUES