Mr. L. G. BELL (St. Antoine) moved:

That the petition of Isabella H. Sadler Rice, presented on the 14th ultimo, praying for a bill of divorce from James Bedford Rice, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (c) in relation thereof.

Explain.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

This bill has one section only and provides for the extension of the life and the powers of the radio commission for a couple of months in order that this matter may be dealt with more fully upon our return.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, this might be an appropriate moment to refer again to the designation of the introducer of this bill. This bill appears on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and my right hon. friend who has just introduced the bill (Sir George Perley) is either the Prime Minister or the acting Prime Minister, he cannot be both. I see no reason why bills should not appear on the order paper in the name of whoever may be the acting Prime Minister if he is responsible for the measure so that the records may be complete. I looked up the votes and proceedings of the house to see what had been done in 1919 when Sir Robert Borden was unfortunately indisposed and unable to be present in the house for a time. Sir George Foster was the acting Prime Minister at the time and I notice that bills and resolutions were introduced in Sir George's name when he was the acting Prime Minister. It may be the modesty of my right hon. friend which has caused him to omit putting in his own name when acting as Prime Minister, I have no doubt he has been appointed acting Prime Minister by order in council of the cabinet and that he is the acting Prime Minister. Measures that are brought in by my right hon. friend should be in his name. Further on, on the order paper, we have a notice for adjournment and it again is in the name of the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend did tell us the other day that the Prime Minister was keeping in touch with matters in the house, but I submit that that is not sufficient. The procedure with respect to public measures where it is of permanent record should not be designated otherwise than as is strictly accurate. I mention this again though I do not want to make any particular point of it except to see that the proceedings of parliament and particularly of this house are kept and of record in the regular way.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

I have no particular objection to what my right hon. friend says except that when he accuses me of undue modesty he is making a great mistake.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Explain.

Soldier Settlement Act

Mr. DURANLEAU:

The object of this bill is to empower She governor in council to determine a remuneration for the harbour commissioners of New Westminster for their services out of the revenue of the harbour. Hitherto the commissioners have served without remuneration and the business has been increasing every year since their incorporation. During the year 1934 they have made a splendid showing. They have met their operating expenses, the interest on debentures both to the public and the government, and they had a surplus of many thousands of dollars. I have not the particulars here but when the bill is in committee I will give the exact figures.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. McINTOSH:

Explain.

Mr. GORDON:

Strictly spealdng, and in

order to keep the record correct, this bill should not be in the name of the Minister of Labour but rather in the name of the acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization. The bill is designed to make permanent employees of the Department of Soldier Settlement Board. I think it is pretty well known to all members of the house that the employees of this department have always been deemed to be temporary, and the department has been functioning now for some sixteen years. In the last few years the department has taken on a great many duties with which formerly it had nothing to do-duties which will undoubtedly continue for many years to come. Their work has been, I think, highly satisfactory and it is my view and the view of the government that the time has come when these employees should be made permanent and given a chance to enjoy the benefits of the Superannuation Act.