Mr. SPEAKER:

Before I proceed with the Orders of the Day, I desire to offer my sincere thanks to the House of Commons for its kind expression of condolence on the occasion of my recent bereavement.

Fifty-seventh Annual Report of the Fisheries branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.-Hon. Mr. Cardin.

Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):

Owing to the fact that statements have been appearing in the press in regard to the pensions of the old veterans of the mounted police, which statements have not been confirmed in any way, I desire to ask the Minister of Justice if steps are really being taken to overcome the very serious handicap under which these old veterans are suffering.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

In reply to my hon. friend I say,

yes.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

In reference to the remarks of my hon. friend. I might give the House the impression I had at the time of adjournment last evening. The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) was speaking at six o'clock. As I reeal, it was, as stated, just six o'clock as his address was obviously being concluded; when he concluded, the Deputy Speaker, being in the chair at the time, looked around to see if any hon. member intended to follow. No one in the house rising, and no exception being taken, the Deputy Speaker then asked the House if he should put the motion, and it was put with due deliberation. Personally I had not heard any mention by the Deputy Speaker of its being six o'clock. I do not question for one moment the word of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that the Deputy Speaker may have used the words "six o'clock". The Deputy Speaker himself, undoubtedly knows whether he did or not. But I did not hear any mention of six o'clock, although I may say to the House that it certainly was six o'clock before my hon. friend for South

Business of the House-The Address

York (Mr. Maclsan) concluded. When he concluded, the Speaker, as I have said, put th0 motion. He put it very deliberately, and he paused. There were present in the House hon. members representing all groups, and no one present took any exception. As I sized up the situation at the moment, it was that all hon. members who desired to speak had already spoken. I had understood earlier in the day that there were to be no further speeches from this side of the House and that the number of speeches that might be made from the other side would probably be determined by whether or not there were additional speeches from this side. I concluded that the debate was ended and of course took no further notice other than to observe the procedure which seemed to me perfectly regular on the part of the Speaker, bearing in mind that very frequently the House, when it is concluding a piece of business, does run a few minutes past the hour indicated by the clock and further bearing in mind that the Chair in the matter of the time makes formal reference to the hour, as regards which, as I say,

I had not as yet heard any formal declaration made.

The government, have no desire in any way to restrict the debate, much less to deprive any hon. member of an opportunity of participating therein. It seems to me that the matter is one entirely for your own determination, Mr. Speaker, as to what the rules of the House may permit. I do not recall having made any agreement to make a motion. That subject, as far as I can recollect, was not discussed; but if that is the correct method of proceeding, I would be quite prepared to proceed in that way. I would, however, point out, that I should not care to take any action that would have the effect of rescinding the proceedings or that in any way might alter or adversely affect the conclusion of the debate. It is for Your Honour to rule as to the action that should be taken. I would hope that it might be possible to consider the proceedings of yesterday after six o'clock as being in the nature of an inadvertence and to let us proceed with the debate on the Address on that assumption, but that Mr. Speaker is a matter upon which the government is entirely in the hands of Your Honour.

Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):

Mr. Speaker,

before we proceed any further on this subject I rise to a point of order. Rule 19 states:

No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

It must be quite obvious to anyone that nothing can be done except by way of motion. This was fully understood by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) when he mentioned a minute ago that he expected the Prime Minister to make a motion. I submit, on my point of order, that even the Prime Minister cannot make a motion at the present time to rescind the vote that was taken yesterday. All that could be done by any member of this House including the Prime Minister would be to give a notice of motion with two days' notice according to rule No. 40. Under rule No. 40 notice of motion can be given to the effect that after two days the House will consider the question of rescinding this vote. The vote cannot be altered; it cannot be qualified; it has to remain just as it is now or it can be rescinded.

Rule 19 states quite plainly:

No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

Therefore, there can be no comment on a vote. There can be no explanation given on the motion, but the vote can only be rescinded purely and simply. Should the vote be rescinded purely and simply after due notice has been given, what would be the consequence? As I see it, the consequence would be that the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) would be defeated. The Votes and Proceedings read as follows:

And the question being put on the said motion, it

was agreed to.

If you rescind this, in my opinion it will mean that the question being put to the said motion, it was disagreed to. Can this be done? Can this motion be entertained? That would be a matter for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, but at the present time my point of order is that no motion can be entertained unless due notice has been given and then, after due notice has been given, these different points which I have just mentioned can be raised at the proper moment.

Mr. G. N. GORDON (West Peterborough, Deputy Speaker):

Mr. Speaker, in your absence owing to bereavement in your family, I was delegated to take Your Honour's place in the chair, and it might, perhaps, be well if I said a few words as to the incident mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and very fairly stated by him and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). There were left with the government whip the names of Messrs. Evans, Marler and Maclean (York) as the speakers of yesterday after-

140 COMMONS

Business of the House-The Address

noon, and those speakers were the ones that I expected to address the House, as they did, yesterday afternoon. At six o'clock, or nearly six o'clock, I followed the habit of Your Honour and former Speakers, where an hon. member is addressing the House, to remind him that it was six o'clock, and I said to the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean): Six o'clock. He immediately sat down and I asked him if he had finished his address because, if he had not finished his address, I intended to declare that it was six o'clock and also to declare my intention of leaving the chair so that he might resume at eight o'clock. He said that he had finished his address at that time. As the Prime Minister said, I thereupon looked over the House to see if any other hon. member indicated his intention of going on, and finding none I called to the Clerk for the motion and I read it to the House. The misunderstanding and confusion have arisen owing to the fact that when I was reminding the hon. member for South York that he had reached the six o'clock period, some members assumed that that was a declaration from the Chair that it was six o clock and the debate had not been terminated. Among those Who left the chamber at that time was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who was leading his party on that occasion. The reason for Hansard not hearing what was said was because I intended to address the words more particularly to the hon. member for South York and, while doubtless many members heard me, maybe the reporter did not. There has been some confusion; I have since learned that it was assumed by tile acting opposition whip that one of the members of the Progressive group intended to speak yesterday, and it was assumed that opposition members would have an opportunity after eight o'clock of continuing the debate. In order to put myself quite clearly before Your Honour and this House, I have the list which was submitted and handed to me by the government whip and which contains the names of those who were to address the House, the names being submitted to him by the other whips. The same list was used by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and there is no doubt that this is the same list, only three names being on it. Under those circumstances,

I submitted the Address of acceptance and thanks moved by the hon. member for Rim-ouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). It happened that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre left the chamber about the time that he heard me suggest to the hon. member for South York that it was six o'clock, assuming, I

think, that I was about to leave the chair and the debate would continue at eight o'clock. I saw the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) in his place yesterday when I was reading the motion to the House, or shortly after, and I assumed that he was leading the opposition and knew what the situation was.

As I afterwards learned, he had come in in the meantime, just as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) was leaving, and it is more than probable that he was also under a misapprehension as to what had taken place. The leader of the opposition represented the facts to me and I immediately communicated with the Prime Minister, explaining the incident as it had developed. Thereupon the Prime Minister intimated that he was willing to restore the matter to its former status so far as it was within his power to do so, speaking on behalf of himself and the government. The statements of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, set forth the facts exactly as they occurred. In making this statement, Mr. Speaker, my purpose is simply to acquaint Your Honour with the situation precisely as it developed, in order that you, Sir, may be in a position properly to understand and pass upon the questions involved.

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

What the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Gordon) has said is practically my own recollection of the matter; after I had concluded my speech I took my seat, and that is all recorded in Hansard. But I did also hear that the understanding was that other speakers would follow me; as a matter of fact, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) informed me that he understood the debate was to continue. Now, probably no harm has been done, the occurrence being the outcome of a misunderstanding, the consequences of which it is for His Honour the Speaker to dispose of.

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :

I think it is quite clear that the situation which has arisen has arisen entirely as .1 result of inadvertence, and there seems to be a disposition on the part of every hon. member who has mentioned the subject to right the wrong if a wrong has been done in the matter. It is obvious that, under the rules the Deputy Speaker, who last evening occupied the chair at six o'clock, would have no right at all to put the question when he did. Rule 3, which is the one that applies to the House sitting beyond six o'clock, is very explicit on the point:

If at the hour of six o'clock p.m., except on Wednesday, the business of the House be not concluded, Mr. Speaker leaves the chair until eight o'clock.

Business oj the House-The Address

The meaning of that rule is, in my opinion, that at six o'clock it is the bcunden duty of the Speaker to leave the chair unless the business is concluded; he would have no power to put the question except by unanimous consent of the House. I have heard it stated by Speakers in this House that unanimous consent is not to be presumed or assumed; it must be asked. And, so far as I am aware, no request was made yesterday that unanimous consent be given to the question being put after six o'clock. That is admitted. My point, therefore, is that the hour of six o'clock having arrived, as is admitted on all hands, the duty of the Deputy Speaker under the rules was to leave the chair. I can quite understand that he would not leave the chair if in doing so he would interrupt the remarks of any hon. member who was about to conclude at the time. The inadvertence and the error into which the House fell last evening was simply this, that instead of following the rule governing the procedure in this connection, the Deputy Speaker proceeded

without asking the consent of the House-to put the question. There is no doubt about the fact that nobody expected the question to be put yesterday afternoon. I am informed that the whips had notice that other speakers intended to take part in the debate, though I believe the names had not been communicated to the Deputy Speaker. But neither had there been any intimation to the Deputy Speaker, as I understand that there was any intention that the debate should close yesterday afternoon. So far as the Deputy Speaker knew, the list before him included the names of those who would speak yesterday afternoon, and he had no intimation that there would not be other speakers in the course of the evening. Now, this question can be righted, as we have righted so many of our technical errors in this House in the past: all that

is needed is the unanimous consent of the House. In every quarter of the House it is agreed that the present incident is the result purely of inadvertence and not of intention, and the mistake can and should be rectified by consent of the House.

Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):

Owing to an engagement, I had to leave the House yesterday about ten minutes to six, so that I am not acquainted with what took place at that time, although I have no doubt that the explanation which has been made by the Deputy Speaker is perfectly correct. A careful reading of Hansard does not disclose that there was anything irregular in the proceedings. With reference

to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie), who has just spoken, I would offer this observation. In all the time I have sat in this House, invariably the calling of six o'clock was purely a technical affair; it never meant six o'clock by the clock: it always was six o'clock when the Speaker from the chair so declared. That is what I have always understood. So tar as the debate is concerned, I must say that I was astonished to see, on taking up the newspaper this morning that the leaders of the House had agreed, upon being consulted, that by means of a motion or in some other way the debate should be re-opened. When it was learned that the debate had closed, I think there must have been a sigh of relief wherever the fact was made known.

Mr. McMASTER:

That is all very well for those who have already spoken.

Mr. FORKE:

Well, so far as that goes,

I think that probably before this session is over my hon. friend will have had his share of speaking in the House. And as regards those hon. gentlemen who have not spoken, I am sure that there is no subject which can be referred to in this debate that hon. members will not have had ample opportunity, before prorogation comes, to cover in other debates. I have listened to debates in this House on the budget which were largely a repetition of speeches that had been made on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I have no desire to appear contrary, but I do believe that it would be in the interests of the country if the debate were allowed to stand closed.