Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I want to be sure 1 understand my hon. friend aright.

I intimated that the opposition collectively are agreeable to whatever decision the government has reached. Do I understand that the government has reached the decision to sit on the 1st of July?

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Yes.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is the

government's decision?

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Yes.

Privilege-Mr. McMillan

PRIVILEGE-Mr. McMILLAN

On the Orders of the Day:

Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question

of privilege. In yesterday's Mail and Empire I find the following:

Ottawa, Ontario, June 28.-The reasons Thomas McMillan, South Huron, was not entitled to a pair are stated in the following statement made by W. A. Boys, chief Conservative whip. Mr. Boys has given the following details of the situation over the McMillan pair.

When the Liberal whip asked me for a pair for Mr. McMillan, I refused on three grounds:

1. Early in the session when Mr. A. D. Chaplin was sick in bed in Chatham and could not attend, I was refused a pair for him.

2. Mr. McMillan had but a few days ago paired with Mr. Jones of New Brunswick, and had disregarded his pair and had voted.

3. Mr. Carmichael, one of the Progressives, was supporting the opposition, so I was given to understand, and hod to leave for the west on account of the illness of -his daughter, and I felt his vote would offset Mr. McMillan's, and the actual voting strength of the House would thus be preserved.

In addition to the above reasons I since learned from Mr. Hocken that about five weeks ago Mr. McMillan had approached him for a sessional pair, to which Mr. Hocken had verbally agreed. On the 13th June, Mr. Hocken took sick and was confined to bed. On the 15th June, Mr. Hocken, owing to the unusual importance of the division, asked to have the pair confirmed by the Liberal whip, and asked Mr. McMillan to come to see him in his room. This [DOT] Mr. McMillan refused to do, and in consequence Mr. Hocken had to be carried into the House at two a.m., when he should have been at home in bed.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take exception to such a statement. So far as I am implicated, there is no truth in this statement. The hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones) came to me and asked for a pair. My reply was: "All right, but I will do nothing myself; we will go to our whip, Mr. Casgrain," which we did.

I told Mr. Casgrain in the presence of Mr. Jones that he would like to pair with me, and while I was not going home till to-morrow, Friday, night, yet I would pair with him from that moment until my return on Monday night, but it was between the two of them. When the hon. member for Royal did return, he came to me and said that while he thought he was paired, he knew there was no blame attached to me.

As to the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr, Hocken), while we did meet and I would have liked a sessional pair, I got no such assurance from him, and considered our pair only temporary over the week end until our return on the following Monday. Furthermore, I know nothing of the hon. member for Toronto West Centre wishing the Liberal whip to confirm my pair with him on the evening of June 15. This report is

the first I have heard of it. That was the same night on which my pair expired with Mr. Jones, and while a messenger did hand me a note from Mr. Hocken, saying he wished to see me in his room, it was just when the vote was called, and having no obligation to him, I returned the note saying I could not come at present. I did not know of his illness till afterwards.

Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):

Mr. Speaker, the statement made

by the chief whip of the Conservative party which has just been read by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) is absolutely accurate. The hon. member came to me of his own initiative, outside the door of my room upstairs, and suggested that he and I should pair for the session. The words he used were these: "When I am away you won't vote, and when you are away I won't vote." If that is not to be understood as a sessional pair between two hon. members of the House, then I would like to know what is.

As to the occasion upon which he voted, I was under the doctor's orders at the time under no circumstances to leave my bed. I endeavoured to get the assistant whip to confirm the sessional pair I had made with the hon. member for South Huron, and he came to me and said that he had gone to the hon. member for South Huron and said that he would like h'im to come and see me in my room upstairs so that I could go home to bed, but that the hon. member for South Huron had refused to do so. That is the substance, and pretty nearly the text, of the statement made by the whip, and I am here to say that that statement is correct.

Mr. G. B. JONES (Royal):

Mr. Speaker,

I have listened to the statement made by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). On Thursday the 10th of June I passed a note across the floor to the hon. member for' Shelbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Hatfield) asking him to favour me with a pair from Friday until the next Wednesday. He returned the note and said that he was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) until his return. I spoke to our whip and he said: "Perhaps you could see Mr. McMillan." I crossed the floor to where Mr. McMillan was sitting, somewhere near his old seat before we changed sides, and I asked him if he would give me a pair until next Wednesday. He said, "Wait till I see my whip." He spoke to the whip of the Liberal party, and the whip beckoned me to come up and said: "You wish to pair with

5166 ... COMMONS

Business Conditions in Sydney

Mr. McMillan?" I said, "Yes, until next Wednesday." The Liberal whip wrote down, "Jones-McMillan, Wednesday." I got up then to leave, and Mr. McMillan put out his hand and shook hands on it. I went over and reported the matter to our whip, and he recorded the pair in the same way as until Wednesday next. That was on Thursday night. I went home on Friday afternoon and arrived in Montreal at 7.20 on Wednesday morning, and on looking at the Montreal Gazette I noticed that it said that I was the only Conservative away from the House without a nair. You can understand the feeling that came over me when I read that. I came to Ottawa and crossed over and said to Mr. McMillan: "Why did you go back on the pair you made with me?" He said: "I am not to blame for that." I said: "Who else is to blame but you?" "Oh well," he said, "it was our whip." I said: "I did not pair with your whip. I made an honourable pair with you as between man and man and member and member, and you have gone back on your word." He said: "The next time we make a pair we will make it between ourselves." He then asked me if I would give him a pair that week end so that he could go home as his wife was ill, and I said: "Not until this matter is cleaned up." That is the last conversation I had with the hon. member.

Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAJN (Charlevoix-Saguenay): May I say a few words in connection with this matter? I remember the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Jones) and the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) coming to see me and telling me that they wanted to pair. I did not object to it, but I said that the hon. member for South Huron could pair with the hon. member for Royal if all our members would be here and there would be no absentees, and that should there be any absentees I would see that the pair would be covered by some other member on our side who might be absent. On that very night before the division took place I remember going to the whip of the then opposition and reciting these facts to him and offering him a pair for the hon. member for Royal, I think Mr. Sylvestre, the hon. member for Lake St. John, but it was declined. That, according to my recollection, was the only understanding at that time. I have never refused to give a pair to hon. gentlemen opposite; I have always desired to be agreeable to them.

As regards the other incident that was mentioned, that a pair was refused to the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Chaplin) who

happened to be sick, the circumstances are these: At that time the hon. member for

Kent had not been sworn in and had not signed the roll and so, according to the usages, practice and rules of the House of Commons, was not a member in regular standing.

Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Antigonish-Guysborough):

Last week a very representative delegation from the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia, waited upon the then government and made certain representations as to the conditions of business and the industry there, and asked for certain remedies. I may say that the then government had under consideration dealing with that question. I desire to ask the government whether any representations have been made to them since they took office, and whether they intend to bring down any legislation to deal with the matter this session?

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I am quite sure we will be very glad to hear any representations my hon. friend has to make in connection with the conditions in Nova Scotia, and I hasten to assure him that we will not only, consider them, but, I hope, give far quicker and more sympathetic treatment to them than he has been able to do.

Mr. MACDONALD (Antigonish Guysbo-rough):

Have any representations been made to the government?

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

No, I have

heard nothing.

Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):

I wish to ask the government if it is true that a general order has been issued to suspend the execution of all orders in council passed by the previous administration, and also the execution of all contracts already entered into between the late government and contractors?

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I have no knowledge of any such order.