Mr. MEIGHEN:

I have no exception whatever to take to the quotations cited by your honour, nor to Mr. Todd's decision, because both are in conformity with my own view. An hon. member may rise to a question of personal privilege any time if his personal privileges have been interfered with. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carroll) does not so allege. He seeks as a matter of privilege to bring before the House what he claims to be the irregular conduct of the committee. That does not affect the personal privilege of an hon. member at all. Even were he raising a question of privilege, he cannot debate the question, because there can be no reply. I strongly affirm the position taken by the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) that the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) is out of order.

Mr. CALDWELL:

Just to correct a possible misapprehension with regard to what happened this morning-

Order, order.

Mr. BOIVIN:

That is not a point of order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Mr. CALDWELL:

The hon. member (Mr. Carroll) said he had been denied the privilege of being heard before the committee.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I understand the hon. member is discussing the point of order which has been raised.

Mr. CALDWELL:

The point of order depends on the question under consideration as a point of order. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) said that, because if the fact that the hon. member had been denied admission to the committee he should be heard. The committee met this morning and practically unanimously decided to hear certain men who might give us information on a question which is to come before this House. Whether we were in order in that decision or not, I do not know. The hon. member who raises the question of privilege objected to the committee dealing with the matter. What the committee objected to was the interrupting of a gentleman who had been called before the committee.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question of order has been raised as to the right of the hon. member to rise to a question of privilege on the

facts which have been adduced before the House. In my humble judgment I consider that, whether it is a personal privilege or a matter affecting the privileges of the House, the question is properly before the House.

Mr. CARROLL:

I think I made it very plain when I rose to the question of privilege that it was not a matter of personal privilege. I am not complaining in that respect. I do not mind that. Perhaps I deserved everything that was said to me in the committee when I went there. But I want to assure my hon. friend from Victoria and Carleton and the chairman that I am not complaining ot that. My complaint is on a matter which I would think might perhaps come before the House in other ways. I am finding no fault with the committee. My reason for raising this point is that I think the committee is hearing evidence on something which is not referred to them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt in the world that the committee on Agriculture might, if they so desired, revise the Bank Act, they may revise the Criminal Code, they may do anything in the world, so long as they do not report their findings to the House. I have said-and I reiterate-that they have no right to use the public offices of this building to discuss matters which were not referred to them. That is my chief objection. They may do anything in the world as long as they do not usurp the function for which they were appointed. I have said that I hope I have brought fairly to the attention of the House a matter which, in my estimation, is one, not only of privilege, but of national public importance.

Mr. W. F. KAY (Missisquoi):

Mr. Speaker, I trust I may be allowed to reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll). The question of privilege which the hon. member raised, as he stated at first, was that he had been refused a hearing before the committee on Agriculture.

Mr. CARROLL:

I made no such statement.

Mr. KAY:

I wish to say that I myself sent a personal messenger to the hon. member this morning asking him to come to the committee. I have been a member of the committee on Agriculture since coming into the House some twelve years ago. The practice has been almost invariable, that that committee should hear discussions on matters relating to agriculture delivered by prominent agriculturists or by officials of the Department of Agriculture, and to my knowledge those matters had never been referred by the House to that committee. I yesterday received a letter from the secre-

Privilege-Mr. Carroll

tary of the National Dairy Council of Canada saying that a number of representatives of the dairying interests from the different provinces were in Ottawa and had had an interview with the cabinet, and requesting me as chairman of the committee on Agriculture and Colonization to call the committee together in order to allow them to address the committee. Having in view the procedure which has been followed in that committee for many years, I acquiesced, after, I may say, consulting with Mr. Todd as to the propriety of doing so, and I called the committee together. The notice of the meeting is on the notice board in the lobby, and each member of the committee received the usual notice, at the bottom of which was the order of the day which stated that the committee was called for the purpose of hearing representatives of the National Dairy Council on the question of oleomargarine. On that committee there are not only members who are in favour but members who are against oleomargarine so that I think there was no discrimination against anybody. When the committee met this morning, the question was put to them, and they decided unanimously, at least not by vote but by great enthusiasm, that they desired to hear the representatives who were present before them. I may say that sixty-five members of the committee were present. Not on a question of privilege, but on behalf of the committee and the members of it, I must respectfully draw to your attention, Sir, the exceedingly unparliamentary and almost unmannerly behaviour of the hon. member for South Cape Breton when he entered the committee room this morning.

Mr. CARROLL:

I object to the use of unparliamentary language by my hon. friend.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not think the expression "unmannerly" should be used, and I would ask the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay) to withdraw that expression.

Mr. KAY:

I will Withdraw it at your request, Sir, and I will stand by the word "unparliamentary." The hon. member for South Cape Breton entered the committee room while a speaker was holding the floor, and without addressing the Chair, without addressing the committee in particular, without asking permission to say a few words, the hon. member very abruptly or roughly interrupted the speaker and complained that he had not been advised of the meeting, which statement was false.

Mr. CARROLL:

I object to the use of the word "false" by the hon. member.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not think the hon.

gentleman meant to use the word "false."

Mr. KAY:

I will say "inaccurate statement."

Mr. CARROLL:

I would ask that the hon. member be requested to withdraw the word "false."