Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

There is a notice on the order paper for the continuance of the Calder Act.

Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):

May I ask the government that in future, when ministers make motions in this House for the printing of reports, provision be also made for the distribution of those reports. Yesterday I was searching for a report that I thought would be out, and after going from one office to the other I found that the distribution office did not know whether the report would be distributed from there when it was printed, or what number of copies would be available or to whom they would be sent-no provision whatever of that nature had been made. I wondered, therefore, whether it would not be possible in future when motions are made for the printing of reports to provide also for their distribution.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

We will endeavour to meet the wishes of my hon. friend as far as may be deemed advisable.

Mr. W. F. CARROLL (Cape Breton South and Richmond):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. It really is not a question of personal privilege but a matter which concerns the entire House, the committees of the House, and the country at large. There are standing committees appointed by the House to look into various subjects which may be submitted to them each session. I want to bring to your at-

tention, Sir, the fact that the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization held a meeting this morning which was called by the Chair. I happened to learn of that fact-I was not informed of it by the chairman who perhaps was not called upon to advise me-and I went into the committee and saw the somewhat unwholesome and unsavory sight of a gentleman making propaganda on a question which will, in the immediate future, come before the members of this House. You will notice, Sir, there is a resolution standing on the order paper in my name-No. 12-which has reference to the question of oleomargarine-and I can see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) bowing his head when he hears of oleomargarine. Sir, the subject of oleomargarine was never referred this session to the committee on Agriculture, and I do not see by what right, or by what authority, that committee should undertake to discuss the matter and allow the solicitors, the paid solicitors, of any industry, whether it be the dairy industry or any other, to appear before them without notice to other persons who may have an interest in that particular question. I went to the committee and raised objection to the proceedings, but I was told, first by the chairman and then by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Caldwell), who is an all-wise man in this sense, that I had no authority there. I would like to point out to the House that in my humble opinion the committee on Agriculture had no more right to sit and discuss that matter than I had to go there-and I had no right.

Mr. Speaker, we pay certain officials, such as stenographers and secretaries of committees, to do certain work, and no chairman and no minister has the right to call a committee, and to use the services of these officers, in order to make propaganda, whether it be on the question of oleomargarine or a much lesser subject. I wish to point out. Sir, as strongly as I can, that the committee on Agriculture are doing something they have no authority to do. The meeting of this committee was called by the chairman three or four days ago, and however decent a man the chairman may be-and I am making no charge against anybody-the unfortunate part is that it was summoned for no other purpose than the making of propaganda. The chairman of that committee, in my humble estimation, and the gentlemen who supported him, exceeded their powers in allowing the solicitor for the dairy institutions of this country to make a speech of a couple of hours duration in connection with a matter-

Privilege-Mr. Carroll

Mr. McBRIDE:

I take exception, to that statement. The gentleman in question made no speech of two hours duration; it occupied less than twenty minutes.

Mr. CARROLL:

My hon. friend is one of those who objected when I went to the meeting and said I was trying to make political capital.

Mr. McBRIDE:

Certainly, I did.

Mr. CARROLL:

I was at the committee for at least twenty minutes listening to this gentleman and I am told he continued his -may I say?-his peroration, long after I left. However, the question of time as between my hon. friend and myself is a very small matter. I say that such representations should not have been allowed to be made at all. I maintain that the committee on Agriculture should not allow itself to be used for the making of propaganda for any industry or any set of men in this country, and I charge that was the object in view when the committee was called together. Now, Mr. Speaker, I did intend bringing this matter up in a somewhat different manner. I was of the opinion that it might be considered a matter of national importance, and that I might be allowed to move the adjournment of the House in order to draw attention to it.

However, on consultation with gentlemen who know more about the procedure than I do, I concluded to bring the matter up on a question of privilege, and I wish to say that this is a matter which I think may be discussed. It is a debatable matter, but it does not pertain to the question of personal privilege. For that reason I brought it up in this way. I do not know that I can use language sufficiently strong to impress upon the members of this House the grievance which I, as a member, and the grievance which I think every hon. member of this House should have on a question of this kind.

Mr. CALDWELL:

I rise to a point of

order. I should like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the hon. member is in order in discussing this matter.

Mr. CARROLL:

Is the hon. member not

a little late?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

On a question of privilege. I think that if the hon. member was not allowed to go into it in committee, it is a question of personal privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think there is no question with regard to this being a matter affecting the privileges of the members of the

House. I do not wish to give a ruling before I have heard the parties, but from what I gather, the whole question is whether a committee has a right to discuss or deal with a matter which has not been regularly referred to that committee. I wish to hear discussion on that point.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I submit, with all deference, that the hon. member cannot bring this matter before the House in this form. That an hon. member, as a matter of privilege, can rise in the House to debate the conduct of a committee without any report from that committee is totally at variance with what I have understood to be the practice, and certainly no debate can take place on that matter. How can such a matter be debated-how can both sides be heard? The hon. gentleman may rise and complain of his treatment in this House or in the committee, but having made that statement, he has stated his own position, and the matter is through. But the hon. member has gone far beyond that.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Referring to rule 47, I

find the following:

Whenever any matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately.

Then, paragraph 479 of Beauchesnes', I find the following:

May says, page 241, that the proceedings of the House may be interrupted at any moment, save during the process of a division, by a motion based on a matter of privilege, when a matter has recently arisen which directly concerns the privileges of the House, and in that case the House will entertain the motion forthwith. Bourinot, page 303, quotes an ancient authority as saying whether any question is or is not before the House, and even in the midst of another discussion, if a member should rise to complain of a breach of the privileges of the House, they have always instantly heard him'. It seems that the first duty of parliament is to keep its privileges and no rule or standing order should restrain its conduct when it must vindicate its authority.

In the present instance, I understand, the hon. member (Mr. Carroll) has a motion on the order paper relating to oleomargarine, and he now states that a committee to which this matter has not been specially referred, dealt with that question this morning, thereby anticipating his motion to be debated at a later date before the House. This, in my judgment, is contrary to the rules of the House, and the rules to be followed in the committee. If hon. members will refer to Bourinot they will find that the special committees and standing committees can only deal with matters which are specially referred to them. I am informed that Mr. Todd, who is the chief of the committee clerks, and an

Privilege-Mr. Carroll

old authority, having been in the service of this House for over forty years, decided -and I agree with his decision-not to allow the evidence to be reported under such circumstances.