Withdraw.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Let him speak.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Even though the Prime Minister may on any occasion have used such language, it would be none the less unparliamentary, although I cannot recall his having done so. At any rate, that would not establish a precedent.

[Mr. Guthrie.!

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

When the Prime Minister uses the words, "That always has been done; it has become a sort of custom", he is speaking deliberately, and I say that in making the statement he did make, he was making a statement which is to be regarded as a deliberate statement. I say that the Prime Minister must have known or ought to have known that it was not correct at the time.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question is not

whether or not it was a deliberate statement: that is perfectly parliamentary. Either the Prime Minister or any other hon. member may be mistaken in making a deliberate statement. But to say that the right hon. gentleman makes a statement deliberately to deceive the house is unparliamentary, and again I ask the right hon. the leader of the opposition to withdraw that accusation.

Withdraw.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Well, it was

a deliberate statement calculated to mislead the house.

Withdraw.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

If you prefer me to say that it was a deliberate statement, well and good.

Withdraw the statement.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I wish the right hon. gentleman would not quibble. He must either withdraw or refuse to withdraw the language he has'used. He is too good a parliamentarian not to know that the statement he has made is not parliamentary. The statement was that there was a deliberate intention to deceive the house. It is unparliamentary in character and in the interests of parliamentary procedure and good order in the house I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I did not use the statement " to deceive the house," I said, " to mislead the house." However, if Your Honour rules that any particular words have been unparliamentary, so far as those words are concerned I am quite prepared to bow to your ruling. That is all I have to say.

Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):

Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a question answered yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) with regard to the Stamp Commission. His answer reads:

The Budget-Mr. Motherwell

In answer to the second question, no sum was paid for fees to any of the commissioners, but for expenses Sir Josiah Stamp received $2,120.57: Chief Justice Brown, $1,198.16; Mr. W. S. Evans, $1,101.73. Sir _ Josiah Stamp declined to accept any fee for his services, and, as has been intimated, a piece of plate was presented to him. Chief Justice Brown expects to be paid some small honorarium for his services, an appropriation for which will be included in the supplementary estimates, no amount having been determined.

I should like to inquire of the Prime Minister if Mr. W. S. Evans, one of the commissioners, is to receive any fees for his services, and I should like to know also when we may expect to know the amount which Mr. Sweatman is to receive for his services in connection with the commission.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :

So far as I know, no fees are payable

to Mr. Evans. I fancy the account of Mr. Sweatman will be paid at a not distant date but I am not now in position to say exactly when.

Mr. BEAUBIEN:

This is the first instance I have known of a lawyer delaying to render his bill.