Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):

I arise to a question of privilege.

Hansard 'at page 2384 records the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) last night as having made certain statements referring to myself to which I think it only fair to make brief reference. The hon. gentleman was discussing the very much debated question of Canadians going to the United States and Canadians returning, and he had been reading a statement alleged to have been made by Mr. MaicNeil of the Great War Veterans. On page 2385 of Hansard he proceeds to say:

In this connection I should like to remark that the Minister of Labour stated that many of these people are returning to Canada again and gave figures showing that in 1923, 43,432 returned and in 1924 the number was 43,316. He stated that these figures represented Canadians who had paid the $8 head tax and had obtained a refund on their return to Canada. I am quite sure that the minister, if he thinks the matter over in a sober manner and after due reflection, will not repeat that statement in public, because the figures as furnished by the American authorities of those who have actually returned and received a refund of head tax, during the five months beginning with April 1924 are respectively 265 , 215 , 259, 199 and 190. That is a vastly different story, because those figures constitute less than one-fiftieth of the number claimed by the Minister of Labour. I have other extracts on the subject, but I have no desire to take up time by reading them.

On February 9th, in this House, a considerable discussion along the same lines took place and that evening I sent a night lettergram as follows:

Ottawa, February 9th, 1925.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I rise to a point of

order. The hon. minister is evidently about to adduce-in fact he is already in process of adducing-an argument which would be an integral part of a debate. At this point the Orders of the Day cannot be availed of for that purpose. It is clear, even from the quotation which the hon. member has made, that there could be no matter of personal privilege involved at all.

Mr. MURDOCK:

This is a question of

personal privilege. It is intimated that the statements I gave to the House were false.

Privilege-Mr. Murdoch

I propose, and I think it only consistent to show they were true.

Order, order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman is

speaking to a point of order-

Mr. MURDOCK:

I am just going to give the original document received from the Secretary of Labour of the United States indicating whether my statements are false or true.

Mr. SPEAKER:

If it is a question, of privilege and affecting the honour of the hon. gentleman, he can only speak to that point and correct the statement made by the hon. member on the ground that he was misquoted or that he was practically described as a gentleman who did not speak the truth. If that is the point raised by the hon. gentleman it is certainly a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman should not however make a long speech. He should simply indicate how the statement made by the hon. member from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) was not according to the facts and one affecting his honour.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I want to make myself

clear on this point. What I contend is this: The mere fact that one member has disputed the correctness of another member's statement is not an aspersion on his honour at all.

Mr. MURDOCK:

There is more than that involved in this, as I will show before I get through.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. gentleman said

that that was precisely what was involved. It is not an aspersion on his honour, and is no foundation for a question of privilege.

Mr. ARTHURS:

I had no desire to impeach the hon. gentleman's honour. I was quoting from figures and statements made by a gentleman whose name I gave, and the fact that the hon. member's figures and my figures did not agree, so far as I can see, is no reflection either upon the minister or myself. This is a matter which constantly occurs in the House, and I do not see any reason why the hon. member should proceed to make a speech.

Mr. MURDOCK:

The hon. member said:

I am quite sure that the minister, if he thinks the matter over in a sober manner and after due reflection, will not repeat that statement in public.

I propose to repeat it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

It happens every day

that hon. members on one side will make statements that they consider true, and hon. members on the other side will controvert those statements when they consider they are

incorrect. This does not constitute a question of privilege unless the honour of an hon. gentleman is impugned. Impeaching the honour of an hon. member would give rise to a question of privilege; but in the present instance, from what I can gather, the hon. member from Parry 'Sound (Mr. Arthurs), had no intention at all to impugn the honour of the hon. gentleman, and I cannot detect a question of privilege.

Mr. MURDOCK:

I desire to conform to the wish of the House, but I claim that the hon. gentleman in his speech in substance called me a liar. That is exactly what it amounts to, and this is a question of personal privilege to show who is misrepresenting.