Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):

I rise to a

question of privilege. Yesterday I made in this house a statement regarding the purchase of potatoes by the government for the Hudson Bay expedition, and the Minister of Railways stated in the house last night that only forty-five bushels had1 been purchased. I received to-day from a reliable produce firm in Halifax the following telegram.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. On the orders of the day being called it is not permissible to read telegrams or messages.

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :

If Your Honour pleases, the point taken was not a question on the orders of the day but a question of privilege of the member himself. Your Honour probably did not hear him.

Mr. SPEAKER:

No telegrams or documents which are not laid on the table of the house may be read even on a question of privilege.

Mr. BENNETT:

As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, he may state the contents of the telegram.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Certainly.

Privilege-Mr. Quinn

Mr. BENNETT:

That is what I understand he proposes to do. He was charged yesterday with having made a false statement, and he is now speaking on a question of privilege with regard to his own reliability with respect to the matter.

Mr. QUINN:

I will give reliable information which I obtained by wire from Halifax to-day to the effect that 450 barrels of potatoes were supplied to this Hudson Bay expedition at the price of $12 per barrel, when native potatoes could have been supplied in Halifax for one-third the cost.

Mr. DUNNING:

Surely, Mr. Speaker, I

now have the privilege of replying. I wish to state positively that the Department of Railways and Canals made no such purchase.

Mr. BENNETT:

Do I understand the

Minister of Railways and Canals to say that no department of the government purchased these potatoes? Is he trying to hide behind the Department of Railways and Canals?

Mr. DUNNING:

Yesterday in connection with this matter the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) referred directly to myself and the Department of Railways and Canals. I made no investigation beyond the limits of my own department and the work on the Hudson Bay of that department. As to what may have happened elsewhere, my hon. friend can address his question to those who are responsible, but with respect to my department I assert positively that the statement which I gave last night was correct in every particular.

Mr. SPEAKER:

In order to make the

point of order perfectly clear, Bourinot, page 336, as quoted in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 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.

That is my authority in objecting to the reading of the telegram.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):

May I ask if it is the intention of the government to amend the Old Age Pension Act at this session of parliament with a view either to making it a federal responsibility or at least increasing the proportion of the federal responsibility?

56103-22J

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

There is no intention to amend the act this session.