Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. I hold in my hand a newspaper of Quebec, dated yesterday which claims to have correctly reported the comments I made in the house on Tuesday evening. I find, according to this newspaper, that I opened my speech with the following remark: "I regret that the right hon. Prime Minister is not in his seat." Now, the words that I lid use were the following: "I notice that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is not in his seat" and they thus appear in Hansard.

Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) (Translation): What newspaper do you refer to?

Mr. GOBEIL (Translation) :

The Evene-ment.

1. Was one Ephrem Renaud, of St. Eustache, Quebec, recently liberated on parole from the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?

2. If so, what was the length of his sentence, and how long was he detained in said penitentiary?

3. By whose recommendation was he liberated?

Mr. RINFRET:

With reference to this question, Mr. Speaker, I notice that when it was called yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) took the attitude that it was not a proper question to ask, stating that it had not been the practice in the past for governments to reply to such questions. I would point out briefly, however, that this question of mine is quite different from questions or demands of a similar nature made in the past. The last occasion on which a question of this kind was asked in this house was on March 12, 1930, when the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail) submitted a motion for a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents concerning a certain case of liberation. May I point out further that I am not asking for any confidential reports or documents; I merely wish to make certain of a group of facts where a certain person has been liberated-what was the length of his sentence, how long he had been detained, and so forth. These are facts; there is nothing in the nature of a demand for confidential reports. There is another point I would also make. When the Hon. Lucien Cannon, the predecessor of my good friend the present iSolicitor General (Mr. Dupre), refused to produce such documents, he made it very clear that he had examined the case, and he took the responsibility for refusing the production of those documents. In other words, someone must be responsible for cases of this kind. If the government does not desire to give to parliament information concerning cases of liberation, at least we should have a pronouncement from one of the ministers-and I think it should come from the Solicitor General-that he has looked into the matter and is quite satisfied that the case has been properly handled, and that for such reasons he does not desire to give the information. But the mere refusal to answer the question, without any acceptance of responsibility, is not, in my opinion, in conformity with responsible government. Someone must be responsible for any liberation on parole granted on the recommendation of the Solicitor General-

Order.

Mr. RINFRET:

-and if the government cannot supply the information-

Order.

Mr. RINFRET:

-they should take the responsibility.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has explained in sufficient detail the nature of his question.

Questions

Mr. RINFRET:

I am sorry you did not call me to order sooner, Mr. Speaker. I am through.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yesterday I made certain observations with respect to this question. This is a matter that touches, not the Solicitor General nor the Department of Justice, but the conduct of government. The question as to whether or not information of this character should be given is a question that has engaged the attention of successive administrations, and the rule has been not to furnish such information. And until the matter is properly debated and another conclusion has been arrived at, which would involve making known to the public every case that is dealt with-for one means all-the government does not propose to depart from that rule. May I point out that the responsibility is that of the government, because it is His Excellency the Governor General who acts upon the advice of his ministers. They accept the responsibility; it is provided by statute; and as one case means all, then until this house, by proper notice of motion and subsequent discussion and debate, has arrived at a conclusion other than that which I have indicated, the government, I repeat, does not propose to depart from the rule.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

May I ask my right hon. friend if that applies to Nos. 1 and 2 of the question?

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

But they are merely questions of fact.

Mr. BENNETT:

Quite so.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

They merely inquire

whether a certain man has been liberated. I quite understand the abjection that might be raised to No. 3-by whose recommendation he was liberated. This involves confidential reports, and in the interest of justice these confidential documents ought not to be given to the public. But as to the question whether a certain man has been in gaol and has been liberated, I think the public has a right to know.