Mr. BENNETT:

Explain.

Mr. CRERAR:

The amendments suggested to the Indian Act are all of a minor character, as I recall them now; it is some little time since I have seen them. They relate to the disposal of the property of an Indian on a reserve to someone off the reserve; to the manner in which the council meetings of the Indians may be held and the giving of a casting vote to the presiding officer; and there are also some regulations to control what is termed a potlatch that still exists on one reserve on Vancouver island. As I have said the amendments are more or less minor in character and a fuller explanation will be given when the second reading is moved.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. Speaker, before the

orders of the day are called, I beg to rise to a question of privilege. I am informed that this morning at ten o'clock, and thereafter, a number of employees of the House of Commons were called into the office of the sergeant-at-arms and summarily dismissed, without cause being alleged or given. In some cases this means a very great hardship. I wrote to the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) this morning as follows:

I regret to have to inform you that I propose raising the question of the privileges of the House of Commons in connection with the dismissal this morning, under instructions from the Speaker, of a number of men who have been employed in the house for some years past.

Some of those persons thus dismissed have been employed for many years, some for six years or thereabouts and others for lesser periods of time. I am not discussing their fitness for their positions, because, as I shall point out presently, if they have been guilty of misconduct or if there is any charge against them, that charge must be investigated. If

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett

it is found warranted by the facts, then, of course, the statute provides that the Speaker may dismiss them.

The words with which I opened my observations are words which I have read in an address made by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in this house on Tuesday, February 28, 1888.

I mention that because later he presented a motion to the house, to which I referred the other day. A debate ensued and definite action was taken by the house, holding that the translators came within the ordinary rule and were not exempt from the provisions of the statute. This is the privilege of this house that I want to bring to the attention of this chamber: Our statute provides that the Speaker of this house shall exercise certain powers only under certain conditions. Section 21 of chapter 145 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, which in terms is the same as the statute referred to by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1888, reads as follows:

If any complaint or representation is at any time 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, the Speaker may cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct or fitness of such person.

2. If thereupon it appears 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 general, and, if he has not been appointed by the crown, suspend or remove him.

In other words no man serving this House of Commons is to be dismissed by the Speaker until he has been given notice of the misconduct charged against him and has had an opportunity to give his defence, and then only after action is taken in the manner indicated by the statute. Therefore there has been a clear breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.

There is the statute. This morning, without notice as to the cause, men were called into the office of the sergeant-at-arms and told that their services were ended. The Speaker is bound by the statute; the sergeant-at-arms, carrying out the directions of the Speaker, also is bound by the statute. Some of these men were returned men; one of them has six children and his wife was ill all summer. He is dismissed without notice, just told to go and check out. Obviously, not having had an opportunity to ascertain the fact because I could not ask either the sergeant-at-arms or the Speaker with relation to it, all I can say is that I was told on what I regard as good authority that a large number of these men

have been thus dismissed from their positions, in this cold, winter weather, without warning, except as I understand, that notice was sent by one of the members of this house, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) some days ago that they were engaged only from day to day. But he was not the Speaker of this house at that time and I think it is quite clear that he had no authority to send any such notice.

In the case to which I referred, in 1888, the matter was discussed at great length. There seemed to be no doubt in the mind of anyone that an employee of this house could not be dismissed unless he had a chance to be heard, unless he had notice what his fault was. In that case Mr., later Sir Adolphe Chapleau, wrote a letter to the Speaker making his complaints against the individuals in question; the Speaker at once passed it on to them and they filed their defence; on the strength of that the matter was then sent by the Speaker to the committee on debates, and subsequently it apparently reached the committee on privileges and was dealt with. This is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said as to the method that was adopted:

In fact the complaint which was made -against them is not in reference to their services as officers of this house, but the charge is that they went out of their proper sphere of action and grossly insulted some, members of this house. The charge was brought forward by my hon. friend, the Secretary of State, in a letter dated the 22nd May, 1887.

I will not read that because it is not pertinent to what I have to say:

Upon receipt of these complaints, you, sir, very properly referred them to the officers themselves for their answer. They sent you their answers, and you afterwards sent the whole correspondence to the chairman of the debates committee. The debates committee investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that it had better be left in your hands to be dealt with. They reported to the house, but that report never was taken up, it never was even moved in the house. It must be regretted that this report was not considered by the house, because then the whole matter could have been dealt with by the house upon its merits, and the house could have determined at once whether these gentlemen had been guilty of such an offence as warranted their dismissal.

I am not going to do more than point out that in all the discussion that took place there seemed to be no doubt that the provisions of the statute in any event must be observed, that complaint must be made and when the complaint is made opportunity should be given to the person charged to defend himself, and thereafter the action mentioned in the statute may be taken.

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett

Now, sir, I bring to your attention the fact that one of the privileges of this house has thus been violated. It was regarded by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by all those who spoke in the house then as a matter of first rate importance, not as something trifling and insignificant. That men could be dismissed without notice and without cause assigned seemed to be something that every member of the house regarded as impossible because of the statute-it was not then chapter 145, but I have taken the trouble to have it compared, and that statute still governs this house. How are we to deal with it? Obviously the proper course is indicated by the action taken by the House of Commons in 1888. And it must have been before this house since-I have not had time to look it up-because I observe this copy of Hansard is underlined with pen and pencil by some persons who evidently have been giving it careful consideration in years long since past-

Mr. DUNNING:

Perhaps 1930.

Mr. BENNETT:

No, the question what was done in 1930 does not in any sense enter into this.

Mr. DUNNING:

It certainly does.

Mr. BENNETT:

It cannot possibly.

Mr. DUNNING:

We shall see.

Mr. BENNETT:

I admit the hon. gentleman is right in saying he can call up his majority-

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

No one said that.

Mr. BENNETT:

No one has raised the question of this statute in this house since I have been in it. I confess I was not, until I looked into it, aware of the fact that the provisions of the statute were as they are.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

As the right hon. gentleman says they are.

Mr. BENNETT:

No, it is not what I say the statute is; I am reading it. In order that there may be no misapprehension I again direct attention to section 21 of chapter 145, which says:

If any complaint or representation is at any time 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, the Speaker may cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct or fitness of such person.

2. If thereupon it appears 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 govenor general, and, if he has not been appointed by the crown, suspend or remove him.

That is the relevant section of the act which governs this House of Commons, and any open and, shall I say, deliberate violation of it constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.

Now I ask, What is to be done about it? In the case to which I have referred the Speaker said that the papers would be laid upon the table to-morrow. It seems to me that under the circumstances is all we can reasonably hope to have done. The matter then ended. But when Sir Wilfrid had brought the question to the attention of the house and said he proposed to have it discussed, the Speaker said that the papers would be laid upon the table, and I later observe that his language was this: "The papers will be brought down tomorrow." And on March 1:

Mr. Speaker laid before the house certain letters, affidavits and other papers relating to the dismissal of Messrs. A. E. Poirier, E. Tremblay and R. Tremblay, who were up to a recent period employed as French translators of the official debates of the house.

It may be a matter of importance to the house in considering its privileges to realize that these gentlemen were not dismissed in that session of 1887, but in the early part of the session of 1888.

I merely suggest that, having regard to the terms of the statute, it is the duty of the Speaker to lay before this house at the next convenient session, it may be tomorrow or Monday, all the papers with respect to the dismisssal of any employees of this house in accordance with the practice adopted in the construction placed by the house upon the statute that governs our deliberations.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my right

hon. friend has just said he was kind enough to send me a communication at noon to-day mentioning that he intended to bring up in the house this afternoon the question of the dismissal of some employees of the house, which in his opinion constituted a breach of the privileges of the house. In support of his contention that there has been such a breach of the privileges of the house, my right hon. friend has read section 21 of chapter 145 of the House of Commons Act:

If any complaint or representation is at any time made to the Speaker for the time being of the misconduct or unfitness of any clerk, officer, messenger or other person attendant

Dismissals-Mr. Mackenzie King

on the House of Commons, the Speaker may cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct or fitness of such person.

2. If thereupon it appears 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 general, and, if he has not been appointed by the crown, suspend or remove him.

May I draw the attention of my right hon. friend and of the house generally to a distinction which I believe that section was intended to make? It distinguishes between employees who constitute the permanent organization of the House of Commons and its temporary employees. In the organization of this house for the purpose of enabling it to carry on its business there is a distinction to be drawn between the permanent organization that continues year in and year out, and the additional organization that is necessary for carrying on the business of individual sessions. Hon. members will realize that, regardless of periods of vacation and the like, it is essential that there be a permanent staff here, and that, in connection with many matters that affect the House of Commons, there are officers who must be regarded as permanent officials of the House of Commons. With respect to dismissals that have taken place to-day or yesterday, I am informed that there has been no dismissal whatever of any member of the permanent organization of the House of Commons. As I say, there is a second group of clerks, messengers and others, who are appointed for the duration of the session. That group of temporary, as distinguished from permanent employees, includes stenographers, messengers, pages, some charmen that are known as all-year charmen. A clear distinction has always been drawn between the two, one which in the past has governed the actions of the Speaker in dealing with members of the staff of the House of Commons.

My right hon. friend did not read the next section. I do not think he avoided doing so intentionally, but I submit it helps to bring out the meaning of the act. It is as follows:

The Clerk of the House of Commons shall subscribe and take before the Speaker the oath of allegiance, and' all other officers, clerks and messengers of the House of Commons shall subscribe and take before the Clerk of the House of Commons the oath of allegiance.

2. The Clerk of the House of Commons shall keep a register of all such oaths.

I asked the clerk to have in the house this afternoon a record of the registration of oaths of persons included under section 22. The record is at present on the table of the

house. I am advised that not a single one of these persons whose names are there recorded has been dismissed.

I am further advised, and I believe correctly, that in other sessions and other parliaments it has not been customary to have oaths of allegiance of temporary employees, of the class I have mentioned, taken before the clerk. The practice at the present time in that particular is exactly the same as it has been for some years past.

My right hon. friend referred to some action taken in 1888; at that time I believe the reference was to clerks whose position was that of permanent translators. They were permanent employees, as are the translators serving at the present time. If, on the part of His Honour the Speaker, there had been a dismissal of any persons belonging to the permanent organization, I think it would have been His Honour's duty to meet the obligation placed upon him by the statute. But clearly it could never have been the intention of the statute that the Speaker should report to the governor in council the suspension of every charman or charwoman, or the circumstances with respect to every page boy against whom complaint might be laid, or with respect to other employees performing temporary duties during the period of a session. I make that clear because I believe His Honour the Speaker has been most desirous of meeting every obligation placed upon him by statute, and has been anxious in no way to impinge upon the privileges of the house.

I now come to the question as to what is best to do. I thought my right hon. friend, when speaking a few days ago, was quite frank in stating that he would not for a moment be hypocritical enough to say that when there was a change of government all temporary employees should be retained by the incoming administration. He knew very well that almost immediately after he took office in 1930 there began to be a change in the personnel of the temporary employees of the House of Commons. I must say that I think it was perfectly reasonable that up to a certain point such a change should have been made. A Liberal government had been in office for several years. As a result a large number of pages, messengers, stenographers and all-year-round char people had been employed under the previous administration. In 1930 my right hon. friend had a large following in the House of Commons, and I must say that, having regard to the personal relationships of this class of employee with hon. members, he was quite right in feeling that there must be some recognition taken of the change of the per-

Dismissals-Mr. Mackenzie King

sonnel in the House of Commons, and that stenographers, messengers, pages and the like should be selected with some regard to political representation in the house itself. However, what was in his mind in that particular, I cannot say. It is true, certainly, that so far as the present administration is concerned, we would take the view, speaking generally, that an effort should be made to have the political complexion of temporary employees correspond in a general way with the political complexion of the House of Commons itself. I think my right hon. friend and members of his party should have a right to feel an absolute confidence in the persons they may have working with them as stenographers, for example, and that hon. members in other parts of the house and belonging to other groups should have equal confidence in those who are performing sessional services for them. Certainly members of the administration and their following should have that confidence. I do not think any hon. member would feel that the privileges of the house were in any way being infringed if observance along those lines were taken in the employment of temporary clerks and others for sessional purposes. Indeed, if that were not done, I can see where there might be considerable embarrassment to members generally.

My right hon. friend has inquired as to the best course to pursue. This is a

difficult stage of the session at which finally to determine some of these matters. If the committees of the house were constituted, I would suggest that, immediately, there be a reference to the committee on privileges with respect to what is or should be the proper procedure to follow regarding the retention and dismissal of employees of the House of Commons when a change of government has taken place. The reference could be extended, if desired, to include the practice followed in past years. The inquiry could serve to furnish guidance not only to the administration holding office but also to administrations which may follow in subsequent years. The committees of the house, however, have not yet been constituted.

There is this further embarrassing feature, that as yet the house has not appointed a deputy speaker. As a result, His Honour the Speaker is in the embarrassing position of having to preside over a discussion which may take place between my right hon. friend and myself or between hon. members on this side of the house and hon. members opposite relating to his own action in this matter. I should think it most unfortunate if His Honour were obliged to preside over a debate or discussion of the kind. If a deputy speaker

had been appointed, I would suggest that the deputy speaker take the chair and permit debate of any length necessary.

Having given the matter some thought, I would suggest to my right hon. friend and hon. members-and I hope they will concur, that, when the house is properly organized, the different committees constituted, and the deputy speaker appointed, a motion might be made to refer to the committee on privileges the question as to the right and proper procedure to be adopted with respect to the retention or dismissal of employees of the House of Commons. I would expect that on that committee hon. members from all parts of the house would have representation. A report from the committee might then be made to the house, at which time we might have such discussion as may be necessary thereon. In considering the matter I think it would be proper for the committee to consider fully what was done after the change of government in 1930 and also all that has been done since the change of government last year. I believe that would be the most effective way of dealing with the matter, and one which would best serve to preserve the privileges of the house.

Mr. BENNETT:

I must entirely disagree

with the construction placed :by the right hon. gentleman on sections 21 and 22 of chapter 145 of our statutes. If he had been trained perhaps in the practice of the law as he has been in the theory, he would have observed that section 22 does not apply to other than officers, clerks and messengers of the house. They must take the oath of allegiance. Section 21, to which I have referred, refers to the following persons: Clerk, officer, messenger or other person attendant on the House of Commons. The distinction is so clear that it is not necessary to do more than direct attention to it to see what the obvious inference is.

But further, the right hon. gentleman has failed to observe that it is with respect to those officials appointed by the crown that the report is made to the governor general. Page boys, the char service, persons appointed for the session, stenographers-all these some within the powers specially granted by the statute to the Speaker himself, it being provided that if they are appointed by the crown the Speaker may himself suspend or remove them if they ar.e guilty of misconduct, and if appointed by him he may suspend or dismiss them after inquiry. No one in this house has suggested at any time, so far as I know, that what is called the sessional staff, stenographers, messengers or page boys, and

15i

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett

so forth, should not be employed by the government under such conditions as the government of the day may think desirable, exercising either a broad and generous attitude ot a narrow partisan attitude towards the matter, as may be thought desirable. I said the other day that I am not questioning that that has been done and will continue to be done, I suppose, long after we have vanished from the scene. But the point at the moment is that the statute makes provision as to how those who are permanent shall be dealt with. The word "permanent" has two meanings. In the civil service the word "permanent" means one who comes under the civil service establishment, and cannot be removed from office except for cause. The temporary staff is a staff that does not fall within that category. But those who were dismissed this morning and yesterday were, many of them, men who had been here for years and who, if they were not removed, would continue to be here during the Test of their lives. One of them came here I believe in November, 1930, and has been here ever since. Another has been here since 1931, and there are some in exactly the same position in the char service who were appointed by my right hon. friend.

No.