Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is not

in order now.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The Speaker's ruling is

sustained.

Mr. MALCOLM:

I was paired with the

hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Duncan).

The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)

Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.

I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley); but through inadvertence, not looking upon this as a ministerial question, I voted. If there is any doubt in the matter and if it is possible to strike out my vote, I would ask that it be struck out, because the hon. member for Argenteuil is not in the House.

Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):

I was paired

with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. ROBB:

May I be allowed a word

before the hon. gentleman proceeds? I notice members are giving reasons why they were paired. I do not understand this to be a ministerial question. It was a question whether the ruling of the Chair should be sustained.

Mr. BOYS:

Under the terms of a memorandum which has been submitted to the government whips and which has been approved by the ministers, it is well understood that pairs are to count upon any matter introduced by the government or any member on its behalf, or upon any matter introduced by the opposition or any member on its behalf. I would be inclined to think this is a matter which has arisen owing to the action of the leader of the opposition, and, therefore, is one which comes within the terms of the agreement relative to pairs.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

Such a memorandum

was submitted to the whips to be considered, and at that time, it was. I think, decided that it would apply only to sessional pairs. Only a few of those pairs have been arranged; the others have been pairs arranged for just a few days in order to accommodate members who are going away.

Mr. BOYS:

I agree with the hon. member. I was addressing myself particularly to the remarks of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil) who has signed an agreement for a sessional pair, and for that reason I thought my remarks were applicable.

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

I

quite agree with the ruling of the Chair. Had I made the statement upon which you, Sir, gave the ruling, I would have voted with those who voted to sustain your ruling. As, however, I did not make that statement, I do not consider the matter need be discussed any further so far as I am concerned. I wish to discuss another matter, and I hope I shall

be permitted to refer to something that is on the records of Hansard. On July 16, 1924, the Minister of Railways-

Mr. WGODSWORTH:

I am not very

familiar with procedure in this House, but as I understand it, the expressions used were declared by Your Honour to be unparliamentary, and i ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have declared that the

expression should be withdrawn and there has been an appeal from that ruling. The ruling has been sustained. The hon. member should now withdraw the expression.

Mr. STEVENS:

Speaking to the point of

order-it is really not a stated point of order

__may I say, with due regard to Your Honour.

who could not be expected to catch every word that drops from the lips of hon. members when they are debating, that the hon. member for South Oxford did not use the words referred to in the ruling? I submit that he cannot be asked to withdraw words that he never used. To do so would be putting him in an invidious position, and I am quite sure Your Honour has no desire to do that, nor can the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) insist upon a withdrawal under the circumstances. Furthermore, the hon. member for South Oxford has repeatedly stated that had he used such words, he would have withdrawn them, but that he did not use them. If the House cannot allow the matter to end in that way, certainly no opprobrium ought to be heaped upon the head of my hon. friend, nor should he be forced into a false position.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I heard the remarks made by the hon. member for South Oxford; I heard the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The hon. member for South Oxford expressly used the expression which I qualified as being unparliamentary. He intimated that he would make a distinction; that he did not impugn the personal honour of the hon. member, but that the papers had been repeating all over the country that there had been purchase by legislation, or such words as those. That is the expression which I qualified as unparliamentary. The hon. member must yield and withdraw the expression. ,

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

(South Oxford):

I find myself in a most, difficult position. I do not wish to disagree with your ruling, nor will I put myself in that position. I have always had' strict regard to the rules of this House, and if no reference is to be made in this parliament to articles reflecting on hon.

812 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Sutherland (S. Oxford)

members which appear in the press, it is about time that we knew it should not -be allowed. Furthermore, it is only a few days ago that a member of this House-

Order.

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

- got up in this House-

Order.

Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

- and referred to us as willing vassals of a foreign power.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sure that the hon.

member has not the slightest desire to provoke disorder, and there is no reason why the question should not be discussed quietly. So far as quotations from newspapers are concerned, I had not a moment ago under my hand the passage in Bourinot relating to this point. At page 336 Bourinot says:

Nor is it in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or other communications, whether printed or written, emanating (from persons outside the House, and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member, or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the House.

I have no doubt that the expression that escaped the hon. member was pureljr an inadvertence, but as it comes within the pro-scripion I must rule it unparliamentary. The hon. member did not of course intend to be unparliamentary, and as an old and respected parliamentarian he will, I am sure, accept the ruling I gave, which, as he will see, cuts both ways.