Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-La-prairie):

I rise on a question of privilege. I believe it is the privilege, or rather I should say the right, of every member sitting in this chamber to be able to hear the speeches delivered in this house. Unfortunately those who sit in this corner and those who are sitting in the corner opposite cannot do so; and I may add without fear of contradiction that at least fifty per cent of the members of this house are unable to hear most of the speeches made in this chamber. As a result they are unable to understand not only the speeches but the conversations, which take place at the opening of almost every sitting, between the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, and this means that we must wait until the next morning to read in the newspapers or in Hansard what took place the previous day.

Many times the attention of the former leader of the house was called to this condition, but to no avail. Now that we have a new leader of the government I would ask him to consider this matter very seriously. I have no doubt that it will be easy to convince him, for no later than yesterday, when the mover of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown), began to deliver his speech, the Prime Minister left his seat and came to this corner in order that he might follow what was being said. I hope some action will be taken in the very near future.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right; the acoustics of this chamber are bad, though they are not worse than they have been for the thirty years this chamber has been in use. Yesterday, as the hon. member has just recalled, I did move from my seat to the other corner of the house in order that I might enjoy the magnificent addresses being made on the motion to present an address to His Excellency in reply to the speech from the throne. The acoustics are no better in this part of the house than they are in the other corners, and when speeches are being made from the far corner it is just as difficult for

those of us who habitually sit here to follow them closely as it is for my friends in those sections of the house to follow closely what is being said at this end.

This unfortunate circumstance has been long known to all members of the house. I am sure it has not escaped your attention, Mr. Speaker, for, if I am not mistaken, over the last three years you have investigated systems designed to improve the acoustics in legislative chambers in other countries. My understanding is that you have not so far found in use anywhere a system which was sufficiently appropriate to justify your recommending it to the members of this house. 1 hope that before long it will be possible for you to find somewhere a system which you will feel justified in recommending to your colleagues in this chamber to improve the situation in regard to acoustics.

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer here and as one who-

Louder.

Mr. Drew:

As a newcomer here and as

one whose voice is not ordinarily regarded as unduly weak, I must confess I have noticed some difficulty in hearing the speakers in this chamber. As the member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) was bringing this matter to the attention of the house, I had great difficulty in hearing what he was saying. I do feel it is not necessary to explore very extensively the possibilities of solving this problem because it has been solved, and effectively solved, in the chamber of deputies in Paris and in the legislative assembly in Rome where there is, in fact, loud speaker equipment between every two desks by means of which a loud speaker can be installed when anyone is speaking.

There would be no practical difficulty of any kind in installing a small microphone, which would not be unduly expensive, between every desk in this chamber so that every member, everyone in the gallery, and perhaps most important, every member of the press gallery would be able to hear what was said.

Mr. Speaker:

It is not the practice of the

speaker to enter into a debate-

Louder.

Mr. Speaker:

-and it is not my intention to do so. As the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has already said hon. members may be

House of Commons

assured that representations have been made to me in this regard by members of the house, members of the press gallery and visitors to this house. I would be very pleased if a system could be found which would give satisfaction. I think it is my duty, though, to call the attention of the hon. leader of the opposition to the fact that one of the difficulties in adopting the method used in the French house or the Italian house or even in the congress of the United States is the fact that in most of these places the members speak from a rostrum. This means only one microphone need be connected to the loud speaker.

Here, the problem is quite different, but the hon. members may be assured that they have all my sympathy. The Speaker experiences considerable difficulty in hearing what is going on in the house. I will do everything possible to give you satisfaction, though I consider it my duty not to recommend an expensive installation which would not give satisfaction. You may depend upon it, however, that I will do my very best, in consultation with the proper officials, to make a recommendation satisfactory to all hon. members as soon as possible.

Mr. Drew:

Perhaps you will permit me to

say a word in view of the fact that you have referred to what I have said. In the French and Italian chambers the ministers speak from the rostrum, but the members speak from their seats. I believe that system would work here.

Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Supreme Court Act.

Explain.

Mr. Garson:

This bill comprises a number of amendments the purpose of which is to clarify existing sections in the act; they involve no change in principle. There is, however, one notable change, and that is the proposal to abolish appeals from the Supreme Court of Canada to the privy council.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmorency) moved

for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Criminal Code (illegal organizations) and the Canadian Citizenship Act (loss of Canadian citizenship).

Explain.