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

Mr. Beauchesne, the thought 12739-1

which is uppermost in the minds of all hon. members as we meet at the beginning of this first session of the new parliament is, I am sure, the great loss which our country, in common with all the countries of the British Empire and indeed of the world, has sustained in the death of our greatly beloved Sovereign, King George Y.

It would be our wish, at the earliest possible moment, to convey to His Majesty King Edward VIII, to Her Majesty Queen Mary, and to the members of the Royal Family, an expression of the deep sympathy of the House of Commons in their sorrow and bereavement and, also, to express to King Edward our loyalty and devotion. I have to remind hon. members, however, that the House of Commons has not a voice wherewith to communicate in these matters except through the Speaker of the house. The Speaker is the channel of communication between the commons and the crown. As yet, we have not selected a Speaker of the commons.

There is another duty of which I have also to remind hon. members, and it is that before entering upon any other proceedings we should hear from His Excellency the Governor General the reasons why His Excellency has summoned hon. members to meet him in parliament. We have just been reminded in another chamber that His Excellency does not see fit to disclose the reasons which have caused him to bring us together until the House of Commons has elected its Speaker in accordance with law.

When these two duties have been performed, I think it will be more than appropriate, and I know it will be the wish of all, that we then proceed immediately to pass an address to His Majesty the King and a message of condolence to Her Majesty Queen

Election oj Speaker

Mary. However, we are not yet constituted as a house; indeed, parliament itself cannot be said to be constituted until after the commons have chosen their Speaker. I therefore suggest that here and now we select and elect our speaker, and I wish to propose, as one who is a fit and proper person for that position, Mr. Pierre-Francois Casgrain, the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay.

Hear, hear.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The applause which has just greeted the name of Mr. Casgrain would indicate that at least to the hon. members on this side of the house the choice will be eminently satisfactory. I hope it will prove to be equally so on the part of all members of the house.

May I say a word to hon. members of the practice which prevails in the election of a Speaker. In most matters, as all hon. members know, we follow at Ottawa the procedure and practice of the parliament at Westminster. At Westminster, however, the practice has been, with regard to the Speaker, that, once he is elected, he is done the honour, if he is still a member of parliament, of being renominated at each succeeding parliament. Indeed, until last year, the practice had been not to offer opposition to the Speaker of the British House of Commons in a general election.

A similar practice, however, has not been followed in Canada since confederation. The reason, I imagine, is that in our country the population is so largely drawn from those of English origin and those of French origin that it has been felt appropriate that the Speaker of one parliament should be one who is of English descent and the Speaker of the next parliament one who is of French descent. In three instances, however, Speakers of previous parliaments have been re-nominated-this was the case with Speakers Cockburn, Rhodes and Lemieux. Each of these gentlemen was reelected at the first session of a new parliament succeeding the one in which they had, in the first instance, been chosen Speaker. At the time of their re-election they were in parliament. The occupant of the office of Speaker in the preceding parliament is not a member of parliament at the present time. Consequently such a possibility need not at the moment be considered.

There is another circumstance which I feel it is my duty to bring to the attention of hon. members. In Great Britain the practice has been to have the Speaker nominated, not by a member of the government but by a private member-this in order to make it perfectly

clear that, whoever is chosen as Speaker, is the choice of the members of the commons themselves and not an appointee of the government. In Canada the practice since confederation has been different; the Speaker has been nominated by a member of the ministry, the prime minister, in fact, and I think the nomination has in all cases been accepted by members of the commons. It is but right, that the ministry should have at least an opportunity to make known its view with regard to the person it thinks should be appointed to the high office of Speaker. I wish to make it very clear, however, to hon. members, that the choice of a Speaker is the choice of the commons itself, and that hon. members themselves must elect the one who is to be the occupant of that office.

May I say a word as to the position of. Speaker. It is, as we all know, the highest office in the gift of the House of Commons and the most honourable. Its occupant becomes the first commoner. He is the presiding officer of the house and, as such, has great responsibilities. To him is entrusted the custodianship of the honour, the rights, the privileges and the prerogatives of the commons. As presiding officer, he must, above all other qualifications, possess those of fairness and impartiality as between members of all parties in the House of Commons. Indeed, he is the protector of the rights of every individual member. It is also essential that, whoever be the occupant of that position should have a knowledge and a wide experience of the rules and regulations of the house. He must be familiar with parliamentary procedure, and he should also be possessed of a disposition which makes it easy for him to reconcile differences where they may arise, and at all times to see that the business of the house is carried on with the decorum that befits a great assembly such as this, which is representative of the nation.

I recognize that these are many qualifications, many virtues, to expect to find in any one man, but I do believe they are possessed in large measure by Mr. Casgrain, the gentleman whose name I have just proposed.

Mr. Casgrain has been for many years a member of the House of Commons-nearly twenty years, I think-and during most of that time has acted as one of the whips of his party, and for at least ten years as its chief whip. It may be thought by some that the position of chief whip would not necessarily be a qualification for the office of Speaker. I may point out, however, that the qualities which enable an hon. member to command the confidence of his own party are qualities

Election oj Speaker

which are likely to enable him to command equally the confidence of the house as a whole. The experience gained in the office of whip, in dealing with members of all parties in the house, in adjusting differences as they arise, and in doing what is necessary to facilitate and expedite the business of the house, should prove to be an invaluable asset to one who occupies the position of Speaker. The position of chief whip in the English parliament, and indeed I may say also in our parliament, is one which is recognized as being almost on a par with that of a minister of the crown. One who over a period of years renders faithful service in such a position, a service which is not to his party only, but to the whole house, has a right, I think, to feel that his services will, if the occasion arises, be suitably recognized by the House of Commons as a whole.

I might mention that Mr. Casgrain has had considerable experience in the practice of law, and has the honour of having been for many years a king's counsel. I am sure my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, will agree with me that a legal training, while not absolutely essential, is, nevertheless, of great assistance to one who occupies the position of Speaker. The questions that arise, the legal and constitutional points that have to be considered, the decisions that have to be quickly made, are all of a character which demand of the occupant of the chair a trained and disciplined mind and make of great advantage legal experience where it can be found.

With respect to any possible question of partisanship may I say that there is a noble tradition in the legal profession of Canada, as of other parts of the British Empire, that where members of the bar receive appointment to the bench they leave behind their partisanship and adopt a judicial character which is beyond question. That tradition, I think, is equally true of those who have been strong party men and have come later to occupy the position of Speaker in the House of Commons. I believe it will be equally true of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, when he leaves the floor of the house to ascend the steps which taken him to the chair.

May I mention that the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay also has what I regret to saj'' most of us have not, a fluent command of both the official languages of parliament. Like so many of his compatriots, he not only has a perfect knowledge of his own language, but can put to shame many of his English-speaking associates in the facility of expression which he has in their tongue. That, I am sure, is a qualification which will be appreciated by hon. members of this house.

12739-li

I might mention other qualifications, but I shall content myself with saying that I believe Mr. Casgrain possesses the character and has in his personality those qualities, which will [DOT] enable him to discharge the duties of Speaker of this house to the satisfaction of all hon. members, and will perform those duties with impartiality and dignity. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Lapointe:

That Pierre-Fransois Casgrain, member representing the electoral district of Charlevoix-Saguenay, do take the chair of this house as Speaker.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

"Sir, we are met together to exercise a very important privilege of this house." Those are the words of Lord John Russell; therefore we may take them as being singularly apposite to what I have to say.

It is a long established custom in this house-in fact it has become almost a rule of law-that a member of French descent should follow in the Speaker's chair a member of British descent, and that they should alternate in the holding of that high office. As the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said, that rule has been departed 'from on few occasions. The rule is salutary; it should be observed, and on this occasion it is the right of a member of French descent to be elected to the chair of this house. That I think, cannot be gainsaid. And it is a matter of satisfaction to every member of this chamber that on the government side there are large numbers of men qualified by experience, by training and by knowledge to occupy that high office.

The duties of a Speaker are very onerous. In my short time in this house I have been frequently impressed by the fact that as yet we have not been able to appreciate the value of tradition. The newness of our desks, the surroundings of this building, are not conducive to memory of great traditions. The old House of Commons called up more traditions than this building does; it could not help but do so. When one thinks, in the great house at Westminster, of what noble traditions are called into being and what imaginary pictures must pass through the minds of the men who occupy seats in that chamber, one realizes that in a new country we suffer from many things, not the least of which is the lack of great traditions. But we are making traditions; as we make precedents we create traditions. The stories that are told from man to man; the tales that are circulated with respect to the sayings of this or

Election oj Speaker

that great member of the house, these are creating a body of tradition, even in this country, that has great value.

The Speaker of our house first of all has to preside over our deliberations. He must protect the person of the members from insult. He must maintain decorum. I believe some centuries ago there was an hon. member addressing the house who was not being heard because of the noise, and the Speaker indicated that while he could call upon the hon. member to speak he was not in a position to ensure that he would be heard. But that statement of the Speaker was called in question and was regarded as being entirely unsound. Every member of the house has a right to the maintenance of order. Nor is it his duty nor the duty of the members of this house to call uipon the chair to maintain order; it is the duty of the chair to maintain order and decorum in this chamber. It will be within the memory of many, perhaps, that only a few years ago in the House of Commons when there was considerable noise being made by the opposition-which is not unusual-the Speaker turned to the leader of the opposition and asked him if that tumult had his approval or assent, whereupon the leader of the opposition said, "Far be it from me, sir, to indicate to you what your duty is, but I know mine too well to answer that question."

Therefore it is quite clear that it is the duty of the Speaker to maintain order and decorum in this chamber; that is provided for by the rules of the house. In addition to that he must put every question to the house that has to be considered by its members; any motion or resolution must be read by him. But he has a second duty which perhaps far transcends that which I have just mentioned. His second duty is to see that the conduct of debate is maintained in accordance with the rules and practices of this house. That is a difficult task. I think it was Mr. Gladstone who said, when Mr. Speaker Peel was leaving the chair, that no man in two centuries had had the difficult conditions to meet that had the then retiring Speaker. In this house the duties and the difficulties of maintaining the rules of order for the conduct of debate have become greater as the years have gone by. I do not know why. I am going to suggest one reason presently. But in the maintenance of the respect and regard for the rules of debate there are two considerations that a Speaker must always have before him. One is that he must have a knowledge of the written rules, that is the standing orders and rules

of the House of Commons, which are embodied in the little volume which I hold in my hand. That, as we lawyers might say, is the 'lex scripta, the written law governing the House of Commons in the conduct of debate. But there is a great body of law which is not written. There is a great body of precedent which has to do with the conduct of debate. There is that accumulation which has come down, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, during all the ages, to which we must pay regard and respect.

Thus it is that the Speaker is the guardian of the powers, the dignities, the liberties and the privileges of this House of Commons. It will be recalled that in the time of King Charles I, when the king went down to arrest five members or have them arrested, the Speaker of that day said:

I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.

And the position of Speaker therefore becomes that of a servant or organ of the House of Commons. That I think is quite clear. I shall illustrate my point with respect to the question of the rules that are written and the unwritten rules that govern. For instance there is embodied in our standing orders a rule as to the length of time that may be employed in speaking to the house. I have no doubt some members are looking at the clock now. The time is limited, as is known, to forty minutes. That was because this House of Commons so desired, and no one else. The House of Commons makes its own rules and determines how long members may speak, and they have now embodied it in a written rule which was adopted by this house.

There is a rule also with respect to reading speeches. Sir Austen Chamberlain in his recent book, Down the Years, reviewing his life, refers to the fact that conditions in the British House of Commons have become steadily worse; he blames the two front benches largely for this, and refers to the fact that essays have taken the place of speeches, and that essays have been read in the house. I recall, although I am subject to correction as to my memory being accurate, that a Speaker pointed out that, a Mr. Jeffrey was reading his speech. At the end of his speech the Speaker of the day spoke to Mr. Canning and Mr. Fox as to whether or not he should direct attention to it, and they said they thought he very properly should, and he did. *Later when Mr. Jeffrey was closing the debate

Election of Speaker

he undertook to read, and the Speaker called him to order because it was against the rules of the house.

In this house during the last few years I can recall very vividly the then leader of the opposition calling upon the Speaker to enforce order against a member who was dealing with a technical matter and was reading what he had to say, involving medical terms, and he replied, "I have to resort to my notes." Notes may be resorted to, which is an altogether different thing from reading a speech. If the rule is to be enforced, it should be enforced against all members of the house by the Speaker, and not by the members calling upon the Speaker, because the rules of our parliament contemplate that he himself should take notice of that fact.

I mention these things because they are merely illustrations of what you might call the unwritten and the written rules, and that great body of unwritten precedents which has come down through the ages is of the utmost importance in the rulings of the Speaker of the chamber.

It has not been usual for Speakers to be opposed when they are nominated in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister. But in England as late as 1S95 a great conflict took place between Mr. Gully and Sir Matthew White Ridley, and it will be recalled that at that time the discussion became rather acrimonious on the part of both Sir William Vernon Harcourt and the then Mr. A. J. Balfour. But as a rule Speakers are unanimously elected to office. However, it will be recalled that away back in the days of 1835 a gentleman whose name is well known in this country, who had served as Speaker for seven parliaments, was opposed by Mr. Abercrombie and defeated by a majority of I think eleven in a full house, the votes being 306 and 317-a very full house indeed. The reason was one to which I am presently to refer, and it has great force at this time in this country.

It has been said that the position of chief whip equips one well to discharge the duties of Speaker. There was a speech in the British House of Commons dealing with the question of the Speaker in which it was said that a man may have been so closely connected with politics, so closely identified with party fortunes, that it would be impossible for him after long service in that regard to be an efficient and effective Speaker. However, one of the most eminent of English Speakers was chief whip of his party, and another English Speaker was an assistant whip. Therefore in my judgment it is no bar, although there is high authority for saying that never should

the Speakership be looked upon as a reward for services, for technically the speakership is in the gift not of the government but of the house, and the house should not be concerned about rewards for party services, but only with fitness to discharge the high duties and responsibilities of the great office in question.

That being so, I regret to have to say that I am opposed to the election of Mr. Casgrain as speaker of this house. Before I proceed to state my reasons at length I am going to read what the gentleman whom Sir Austen Chamberlain describes as in his judgment the greatest Speaker England ever had, namely the late Lord Peel, conceived to be the qualifications of a great Speaker, when .he was elected. Mr. Gladstone was then Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker Peel used these words:

And I hope, sir, I will make no professions when professions may be so soon tested by experience; but I wish to say this to hon. gentlemen, that I know full well what is the greatest attribute and ornament of that chair. I know how necessary it is for any man, who aspires to fill that great office, to lay aside all that is personal, all that is of party, all that savours of political predilection, and to subordinate everything to the great interests of the house at large. Humbly, sir, trusting in that support, I shall endeavour to maintain and to sustain intact the privileges of this house; to maintain the rules and orders of the house; to maintain not only the written law, but, if I may say so, that unwritten law which should appeal to, as it always does appeal to, the minds and consciences of the gentlemen of the House of Commons. If I have that support, I trust that I may be permitted, not only to carry out the formal rules, but to enforce that unwritten law, and, sir, to promote and to hand down unimpaired, as they have been handed down by those who preceded the late speaker, to those who shall succeed me, the traditions of this house, and, over and above all, its most cherished and inestimable tradition-I mean, sir, that personal courtesy, that interchange of chivalry between member and member, which I believe to be compatible with the most effective party debates and feeling, and which I am sure is one of the oldest, and, I humbly trust, may always be, the most cherished tradition of this great representative assembly. Sir, with these few words-and I trust the house will not think I have unduly trespassed upon its time-[DOT] I sit down, humbly submitting myself to, and placing myself in the hands and at the disposal of, this house.

That was the speech he made in accepting nomination, and before the house had expressed its will. When he left the chair eleven years later he made a speech to which I have not time this morning to refer, but which 1 commend to the reading of every hon. member in this chamber.

Bearing in mind what has been said, it is, of course, well known to most of us that for some

Election oj Speaker

time in the public press the statement has appeared that Mr. Casgrain was to be elected Speaker of this house. That was known. It has been the custom that that should, in a general sense be known, and I do not think that the first minister or any person connected with the government made any statement to that effect. Ralher it was accepted as indicating what was to happen, because the first minister would not undertake to pledge the judgment of this House of Commons, which is the judgment of the whole house, with respect to something which is not a party matter but is one for the house itself to consider.

Under these circumstances I find it necessary to direct attention to the fact that there is a statute dealing with the position of Speaker i.n this chamber. It is not as though this were a matter not covered by law. It is not as though it were a matter in which the high privilege of parliament must be left to chance, to the imagination or to vain Teachings after. They are known; they are provided for. And in every case where thanks have been given to a retiring Speaker of the British House of Commons they have always been thanks for maintaining the privileges of the house. It is my unfortunate duty to ask leave to refer to what was said by the late Sir Wilfrid Lauder when in 1888 he had to deal with a somewhat similar situation. It is an unpleasant duty, but one which I must discharge in fairness to myself and fairness to those with whom I am associated. Those hon. members associated with me, although a small minority, have a right in this chamber to look for that measure of justice and that measure of impartiality which successive generations have declared to be the supreme test of fitness for any man to hold the high office of Speaker.

I find that in 1868 the parliament of Canada thought it necessary at once to deal with a situation which would arise in connection with employees of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not, shall I say, a mere appendage of the government. Hon. members will realize that it is something more than a mere assembly. We are members of the highest court in the land, the high- court of parliament, and it is our obligation to maintain intact the privileges of this court and to guard them from encroachment or attack, from whatever sources they may come.

I find that in chapter 27 of the statutes of 1868 a provision was passed respecting the internal economy of the House of Commons, and for other purposes. It provides for estimates, it provides for duties of the sergeant-at-arms, it provides for duties of the clerk, under certain circumstances, and indicates how

moneys are to be dealt with. Then it proceeds to deal with the conduct of the administration of the House of Commons itself. In that- connection section 9 is as follows:

If any complaint or representation shall at any time be made to the speaker for the time being, of the misconduct or unfitness of any clerk, officer, messenger or other person attendant on the House of Commons, now or hereafter to be appointed, it shall be lawful for the said speaker to cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct or fitness of such person; and if thereupon it shall appear to the speaker that such person has been guilty of misconduct or is unfit to hold his situation, the speaker may, if such clerk, officer, messenger or other person has been appointed by the crown, suspend him and report such suspension to the governor, and if he has not been appointed by the crown then the speaker may suspend or remove such person, as the case may be, and such person shall be so suspended or removed, as the case may be, accordingly.

That you will find in the revised statutes of Canada, chapter 145, a later statute, the terms of which provide for the appointment of a commission of internal economy, to consist of four members of the King's Privy Council who are members of the House of Commons, and the Speaker. They constitute the commission of internal economy for which provision is made in sections 15 and 16 of Chapter 145, which deal with the House of Commons. The commission of internal economy has to deal with problems of administration in connection with the house. I shall content myself simply by pointing out that the sergeant-at-arms has certain obligations and that the Speaker has certain other obligations with respect to matters of expenditure and provision for payment to those who may be engaged for the purpose of conducting the business of the house.

Now, what do we find? We find this, that after the statement was made in the press that Mr. Casgrain was to be made Speaker of the House of Commons, on January 28, 1936 there was sent by the sergeant-at-arms to upwards of 120 employees of this House of Commons a notice reading as follows:

I am instructed to inform you that it will be impossible to continue your employment on the staff of the House of Commons after January 31st next.

Yours faithfully,

This document is signed by M. F. Gregg, sergeant-at-arms, and the name of the person to whom the notice was sent is written in. Those instructions came from Mr. Casgrain. He had the same right to give them as the youngest or most humble member of this house. He undertook to dismiss from the public service by his order permanent officials of this house

I say permanent officials,

Election oj Speaker

because the temporary staff had not been employed. In this connection I shall read the case which came before this house in 1888 when Sir John A. Macdonald was prime minister, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved an amendment against the Speaker's action, where it was pointed out that first of all it is provided. not by custom but by the lex soripta, by the written law of parliament, that no man can be taken from his position in this house unless a complaint has been made against him or before he has had an opportunity to be heard in his defence.

I pass by one employee of this chamber who had served under four sovereigns. He received that notice, and I have spoken to others who received it. Many of them were appointed by the right hon. Prime Minister- not by him personally, but by his administration. Sir, I ask the House of Commons this question: Can it be said that one who is capable of sending such a notice into the homes of men and women of this country indicating that they would not be employed after the 31st day of January can be looked upon with confidence by hon. members seated on this side of the house?

No, no.

Mr. BENNETT:

That is the question. This is a painful matter for me, because I have to go on and .refer-

No, no.

Mr. BENNETT:

A'es. I will read what Mr. Laurier, as he then was, said under similar circumstances. I wrant to do more: I want to be fair to the Prime Minister and to his government. I believe that as soon as the Prime Minister heard that this had taken place he took immediate steps to stop it. I believe that a committee of this government took steps, because returned men with families were stunned over a week end by a notice of this kind. I am told many of those men are now living from day to day in a state of uncertainty. Many who had served nine or ten years, some longer than that, and who received this notice, thus found their households disturbed, their lives made unhappy. and their whole existence threatened.

I wish to acquit the Prime Minister of any part or parcel in this matter. In the bitterness of party strife, governments have to do many things. The pressure of their followers, the pressure of constituencies-all these things are known to all of us. But I will say this: I do not believe this was done with the Prime Minister's knowledge, and I was proud to think that the Prime Minister of this country, as soon as it was brought to

his attention, took immediate steps in the matter. He did not pause; he acted at once and notices cancelling the earlier ones were immediately sent out. I congratulate him and I thank him, if he will permit me to do so, for having seen that such action was taken.

It was creditable to him; it was creditable to this House of Commons that this should have been done because there is a statute governing such matters, and it was in defiance of that statute that action was taken by one who had not been elected to any office but who might very properly hope to be; but who, not content, as he might have been, with providing for the administration of the House of Commons by employing temporary help-and every session sees temporary help engaged, and everybody knows that temporary help is as largely as possible secured from among those who are friendly to the administration; I am not g-oing to be hypocrite enough for a single moment to say otherwise-took action such as I have indicated.

' What, I ask, would be thought in England if anv man would rise in his place and propose'as Speaker one who had violated the provisions of a statute that he must ha-\ e known of, one who is a king s counsel, a member of the legal profession, anxious to know what his position was, and one who must have known what was involved in taking the action that he did.

That, raises another question. The Clerk of this House of Commons has made a statement to the press. I know not how accurately he was reported. I shall content myself by saying that according to the report he said that he was dealing with appointments on the political side, and that there had been a great misunderstanding in respect of these matters. I do not know how far this report in the paper correctly represents what the clerk of the house said, and I shall therefore refrain from saying anything more than that if he did say what he is reported to have said, there should be an instant inquiry.

Now I go further. It is quite clear, sir, to every thoughtful man that what has taken place with respect to the administration of this House of Commons must come before the committee on privileges. How can it be otherwise? The privileges of this house have been invaded. A statute has been overridden. Action has been taken that is in violation of all the dignity and privilege of this House of Commons-a violation not of the unwritten law, but of the lex scripta, the written law of the country. There must be an inquiry. And what position are we to be in if we have our own Speaker putting the motion, as he will be compelled to do, and as has been done in Eng-

Election of Speaker

what has been said to the effect that the choice is in the hands of the house, the fact remains that when the Prime Minister stands to vote, the house will take the view that they will condone this conduct and support the election of Mr. Casgrain to the chair. Although the votes against it may be few, nevertheless I think that if you had the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier here, if you had any of the great champions of the privileges and traditions of parliament here, you would not have this situation. We cannot stultify ourselves; we cannot condone conduct such as this, and make a precedent that will ring down through the years. No matter how difficult it may be, no matter how unfortunate and how unhappy it may be, we have to take this position. Sir, we cannot support the motion that has been made.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Beauchesne, I am sorry I have to crave the indulgence of the house for the purpose of sajdng two or three words in answer to the right hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Bennett). It is not customary to hold a debate on an occasion such as this. In fact, it is not appropriate that there should be a debate, but I feel that part of what the right hon. gentleman has said must not be left unanswered. With the first part of his remarks I am heartily in agreement. Indeed I was pleasantly surprised to hear my right hon. friend say that this House of Commons was not an appendage of any government. When we on this side were occupying the seats now occupied by the friends of the right hon. gentleman we tried to teach that, and I am glad that he has carried his lesson over with him to the other side.

It is my privilege to have been in this [DOT]House of Commons for thirty-two years. Today I begin the first session of my tenth parliament. I have had some experience in what has transpired every time there has been a change of administration, and on almost every occasion complaints have been made. These complaints have not always been made on the floor of the house because some leaders of the opposition thought it better not to do so. However, complaints have been made on almost every occasion. I remember the old parliament building where the Speaker had an apartment in which he lived with his family, and I can remember an hon. member who was to be nominated as speaker coming and installing himself and his family in the apartment in the House of Commons before he was elected. We criticized this at the time, but our leader did not think it would be a good thing to raise the matter in parliament.

fMr. Bennett.]

I think, sir, that confusion always arises owing to the fact that there is not a Speaker to look after the work that must be organized for a session. Many of the employees are purely sessional; they are temporary and have to be summoned to come to work for the ensuing session.

Mr. BENNETT:

I made no comment upon that.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

They are not permanent employees, and somebody has to look after that part of the work. In theory, my right hon. friend is right; the Speaker to be elected has no authority until he is elected. But in practice it has always been done in this way, to my own knowledge.