Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):

Yesterday the hon. leader of the

opposition (Mr. Bennett) made reference to a question that had been answered in the house the day before, and desired further information. Perhaps I may be permitted to table the information now as the question is no longer on the order paper.

Ottawa, March 12, 1930, Canada.

Memorandum for

The Honourable W. D. Euler,

Minister of National Revenue:

On page 492 of Hansard, March 11, the Hon. R. B. Bennett makes the following remarks: "I observe that the last figures given as to revenues are for the 31st of December, 1929. My assumption is that that covers nine months from the 1st day of April to the end of December, 1929, and not a calendar year."

Answer

Mr. Bennett's assumption is correct. It was not possible to give the figures for calendar years so they were given for fiscal years and for the first nine months of the fiscal year 1929-30.

Privilege-Mr. Bourassa

Answer to question 19

In the hurried preparation of the answers to Mr. Bennett's question a typographical error was made and the word "supplements" used instead of "supplement." The supplement to Forms T. 204 and T. 204A is T. 204B Special Permit, a copy of which was included with the other forms, and appears in Hansard.

Answer to question 20

At ports and outports where the exportation of intoxicating liquors is heavy certain docks have been designated within the limits of the port or outport so that exportations may be properly cheeked and controlled and short circuiting within the province prevented. The docks so designated are as follows:

Sarnia:

Loughead dock.

Courtright:

Johnson dock.

Sombra:

Hertz dock.

Port Lambton:

Bray dock.

Walkerville-known as Riverside and Ford:

1. Bermuda export dock.

2. Rumanapp dock.

3. Border Exporters (known as R. A. Vigneau dock).

4. Peter Paquette dock.

Windsor:

5. Nathanson's dock.

6. Carling's dock.

Sandwich

known as La Salle:

7. Bermuda export dock.

8. Major's dock.

9. Benoit dock.

10. Waverly dock.

Amherstburg:

Wood dock.

Wigle dock.

Fraser dock.

An officer may be assigned to the dock at Brighton Beach (port of Windsor) in substitution for a dock or docks rendered unsuitable by shipping conditions.

R. W. Breadner, Commissioner of Customs.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):

I wish to direct the attention of the house to a matter concerning the privileges of all members, irrespective of group or party. I read in this morning's Citizen the following message, transmitted by the Canadian press:

Toronto, March 11.-General dissatisfaction *was voiced here to-night respecting the fate of the Ontario Divorce Court bill on its second reading in the House of Commons to-night, by those who had shown interest in its passage.

G. McLaughlin, secretary of the County of York La\v Association, said it was "much to be regretted" that the vote had resulted as it did, but added he had expected far stronger opposition.

"It is unfortunate that Quebec is so solidly against a matter which Ontario seems to favour, and unfortunate that Quebec can determine whether or not Ontario will have divorce courts," said W. J. McCullum, president of the association.

I also find this despatch from Brantford, Ontario, dated March 11:

Commenting on the defeat to-night of the Ontario Divorce Court bill in the House of Commons, W. J. Carson, newly-elected grand master of the Royal Black Chapter, Loyal Orange Lodge, said:

"We don't agree with the principle of the action-.that French Canadians of Quebec province should be in a position to say that Ontario shall or shall not have a divorce court-to dictate the policies of a sister province when the British North America Act provides that responsible machinery of the courts shall be under the control of the province in which those courts are located.

"Ontario does not interfere with Quebec or her code."

There are a few minor points in that despatch to which exception could be taken, but I am not going to discuss them. I have made a count of the votes as recorded in Hansard at page 522, and I find that out of the 78 votes recorded in favour of the bill-

Mr. STEVENS:

This is no question of

privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is simply answering someone who has made an observation outside this house altogether. That has absolutely nothing to do with the members of this house.

Oh, oh.

Mr. STEVENS:

My hon. friends may laugh, but the point is this, that an hon. member is taking advantage of the rule of this house which permits him or any other member to contradict anything affecting his honour or questioning his conduct that appears in the press. He has taken advantage of that rule for the purpose of asserting what some gentleman said outside with regard to his opinions in this house.

Mr. CANNON:

What objection have you to its being contradicted?

Mr. STEVENS:

I have none, but he has

a place outside the house where he can contradict it, and I object to the rules of the house being used for that purpose, if we or others affected are not allowed to reply to him.

Mr. BOURASSA:

My sole object, Mr. Speaker, is precisely to assert the privileges of this house, to assert the liberty of members voting as they please. Nobody is questioning that.

Privilege-Mr. Neill

Mr. SPEAKER:

Bourinot says at page

303:

la 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 gather from the extracts read by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that he is simply explaining the attitude taken by himself and some other members, which attitude he feels has been misrepresented in the press.

Mr. BOURASSA:

Mr. Speaker, I am not

going to discuss at all the issue raised yesterday. I simply wish to point out that having counted the votes in yesterday's division, I find that out of the seventy-eight votes recorded in support of the motion of my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), twenty-three votes were given by Ontario members in favour of the second reading of the bill, and that twenty-six votes were recorded against the second reading by members elected by Ontario constituencies. With the help of that handy book, the Parliamentary Companion, I found further that of those twenty-six Ontario votes recorded against the second reading of the bill, there were thirteen Liberals and thirteen Conservatives. I well remember the old days when there was talk of "The noble thirteen." Well, this time both parties can claim the honour of having in their ranks a "noble thirteen."

So it amounts to this, that, supposing the whole of the membership representing Quebec constituencies had abstained from voting one way or the other, the bill proposed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre would have imposed upon Ontario, as against the expressed wish of the majority of the Ontario members of this house, a matter which apparently the membership from Ontario, Conservative and Liberal alike, do not want to have. If the members for Quebec are going to be taken to task in papers published in Ontario or elsewhere for giving a free vote one way or the other, because it happens not to please certain people, what may be said of the members from the western provinces in endeavouring to impose a divorce court on the province of Ontario against the expressed will of the representatives of Ontario in this house?

But, sir, claiming for all the members of parliament as for myself, irrespective of creed, race, province or party, the basic principle of British fair play, justice and government, I claim that every man has a right to vote as he thinks and as he wants to. I acknowledge to our friends from the western provinces the

undoubted right to have voted as they did, and I claim for myself and my fellow members from Quebec the same right, without being branded over the province of Ontario as endeavouring to impose upon that province something that it does not want. I leave it to the conscience and the free judgment of all members of this house, irrespective of creed, party or province, whether it is not a basic principle of this house that we should have the right to vote as we please upon any ques tion which comes before us.

PRIVILEGE-Mr. NEILL

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I rise also to a question of privilege. On page 485 of Hansard is to be found a statement by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) which I wish to correct. His statement reads as followss-he was speaking of myself:

Let me quote a few of his words, in 1926, when he moved a resolution respecting grading of eggs, to see how he stands. He evidently was in favour of the wording of the agreement, hut he did not want to vote against the government. I will just take his own words for it. He said:

I will not proceed further with the quotation. He then quoted a few sentences beginning in the middle of a paragraph by which, diverted from what went before and from the context, he sought to prove I said or meant something not only entirely different from but the exact opposite of what a perusal of my speech or even of the paragraph itself would show. I may say that I was not moving a resolution against the grading of eggs, I was speaking against an amendment as a vote of want of confidence proposing to do away with the grading of eggs. I specifically stated that on that and other occasions I had wanted to vote against the government, but I could not do it on this particular amendment as I believed in the grading of eggs. What I said will be found at page 4177 of Hansard of 1926. I think such misrepresentation, sir, is unworthy of the member.

Mr. STEVENS:

Any more privilege?

Mr. BENNETT:

I should say that at least one or two questions might well be raised as to privilege. The last observation made by the hon. member that " such misrepresentation was unworthy of the members," is certainly not a question of privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER:

It ought to be expunged from Hansard.

Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):

Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to say so, there is a good deal-

Privilege-Mr. Neill

Oh, oh.