For the enlightenment of the House I might read the following:
In the Canadian House, questions of privilege take a wide range, but it may be stated in general terms that they refer to all matters affecting the rights and immunities of the House collectively, or to the position and conduct of members in their representative character.
I would just like to point out to my hon. friend that if he raises this merelj' as a question of privilege he is raising it in such a manner that it cannot be discussed. There is no reply to privilege.
been urged by my hon. friend from Quebec East, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I have o-nly this to say-that it is of the most technical character, and avoids a broad or general view of the law which appears on the statute books of Canada. The Independence of Parliament Act, as is well known, was placed upon the statute books for the purpose of safeguarding not only the House but members of the House of Commons, and the rights of the electors of Canada in regard to all relations which exist in this chamber, and section 10, one of the well known provisions of that act, provides that a man who is a member of this chamber shall not accept any office from which he shall derive or receive any salary, fee, wages, allowance, emolument, or profit of any kind unless he is prepared to submit himself to his constituents, or to some constituency in this country, for re-election. Such was the object of the enactment and the test in this instance-it is an easy one and will suggest itself to everyone, is: Do those four or five hon. members
Supply-Formation of Ministry
including myself, who now sit in this chamber as acting ministers come within this prohibition? Do they come within the class mentioned in section 10 of this enactment? Do they receive any salary, fee, wages, emolument, or profit of any kind in connection with the office of acting ministers of the crown?
Nothing in the next preceding section shall render ineligible any person holding any office, commission or employment, permanent or temporary, in the service of the government of Canada, at the nomination of the crown, or at the nomination of any of the officers of the government of Canada, as a member of the House of Commons, or shall disqualify him from sitting or voting therein, if by his commission or other instrument of appointment, it is declared or provided-
Now what I submit is, that it is "provided" in these orders in council simply 'by the insertion of the word "acting" minister instead of minister. The insertion of the word "acting" constitutes a clear and emphatic provision.
understand clearly the argument of the hon. gentleman. Do I understand that he is arguing that the question of salary settles the whole matter-that if hon. gentlemen are able to get the appointment without salary, or have their salaries paid somewhere else, that then they have the right to occupy the treasury benches?