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

That Messieurs Baker, Bertrand (Prescott), Fafard, Howard, Howden, Landeryou, Maclnnis, MacMillan, Macphail (Miss), McLean (Simeoe), Mills, O'Neill, Purdy, Rheaume, Roberge, Sinclair, Spence, Taylor (Norfolk), Tustin, Veniot, be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel myself reluctantly compelled to rise for the purpose of directing attention to what I conceive to

Privilege-Mr. Bennett

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, of course it is clear

that the onslaught of my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett), though apparently directed to me, is rather directed to Mr. Speaker. May I say immediately that by persisting in these attacks day after day my right hon. friend does not do justice to himself, especially when it is in connection with a matter as frivolous as the one he has raised to-day.

Let me simply point out the facts: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) moved a resolution which at this time I shall not read. As was his right, Mr. Speaker called attention to the fact that possibly the resolution might be out of order and possibly it should be amended. He said:

I would draw the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) to the remarks I made on the motion that was presented to the house just before this one, as they will apply to this motion, I am afraid, if it is not amended.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre protested in these words:

Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that objection is being taken to this resolution?

Then he continued to point out that if objection were taken to a discussion of the resolution it would be a hardship on him. I merely rose, in my place and said:

Mr. Speaker, I may say on behalf of the government that we have no objection to this resolution being discussed.

That was because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was asking whether there was any objection being raised from any quarter to a discussion of the resolution. I said we had no objection to it-and this is the tremendous violation of the privileges of the right hon. gentleman opposite. Well, those of us who sat for the last five years know how my right hon. friend directed the debate, and the way he instructed the Speaker.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am afraid the hon.

member will have to-

Order.

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, as a matter

of personal privilege I have a right to speak.

Order.

Mr. BENNETT:

And I propose to do so.

The Minister of Justice has said that I instructed the Speaker. That is an inaccurate, improper and incorrect statement.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I see.

May I add that the persecution of my right hon. friend over the Speaker will not have much effect in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission

may I say that I have been a member of this house for many years, but I do not recall any incident such as happened yesterday. As a matter of fact I believe the rules provide that when Mr. Speaker gives a ruling there is only one way to change it, and that is by an appeal against his ruling. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) occupies a strong position in this house, and surely he knows the rules as well as any hon. member.

I submit the ruling given yesterday by Mr. Speaker in connection with the resolution offered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was in practically the same words as that given in connection with the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods* worth). There was practically no difference between the two. The ruling regarding the resolution of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar seems to have been satisfactory to the government, and therefore no difficulty was raised when it was declared out of order. But immediately after, when the resolution offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was called and Mr. Speaker gave the same ruling, I submit the Minister of Justice should have allowed the ruling to stand, and I believe it would have been within the competence of any hon. member to rise at that time and move that the ruling of Mr. Speaker be sustained. My hon. friend yesterday not only did not accept the ruling but did so in brief and curt words. He did not rise in his place and say, "Well, Mr. Speaker, I am ready to submit to your ruling, but I suggest to you that this is a case in which you might allow the debate to proceed, and so far as I am concerned I shall raise no objection."

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I will

ask my right hon. friend to let my words be read.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

I do not think

it was consistent with the decorum and dignity of this house to dispose of a matter of this kind in the way it was disposed of yesterday. I say again to my hon. friend that I know of no way in which Mr. Speaker's ruling can be set aside, except by appeal, even if it be the desire of so powerful a member-

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

It was not a ruling.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

It was a ruling

by Mr. Speaker. These are his words:

I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the remarks I made on the motion

Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement

that was presented to the house just before this one, as they will apply to this motion, I am afraid, if it is not amended.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

"I am

afraid."

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

In other words,

he considered it out of order. In connection with the resolution of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, he said:

Before this motion is proceeded with, I suggest to the hon. member that it might be advisable for him to amend' his motion, as otherwise I aoi afraid I shall be bound to declare it ouit of order, as I did the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg the other day, on the ground that in my opinion if this motion were carried it would involve the expenditure of public money.

Then he rose in connection with the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and gave the same ruling. In other words he considered it to be out of order, too. I am not concerned with the question whether it was or was not out of order. That has nothing to do with the matter at issue. I submit however that this is a most extraordinary procedure to take. I know of no other instance in which it has happened, and I suggest that the action taken by the Minister of Justice was not in accordance with the rules of the house.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Thank you for the lecture, Sir George.