It is the duty of the clerk to look over these questions and decide whether or not, within his knowledge, they are parliamentary and properly admissible. He decided they were not and he submitted his reasons to me as well as to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). As I said before, I rule the questions and the notices of motion out of order.
Mr. Speaker, I desire merely to clear up a matter of procedure. I have looked into the practice which prevails in the British House of Commons and I understand that the rule at Westminster is that His Honour, the Speaker is the one who decides whether or not a question shall appear on the order paper, just as he decides whether or not a particular question should or should not be asked in the house. I submit that Your Honour is entitled to be advised from any source, you may desire, but I think the full responsibility for any decision should be that of His Honour the Speaker and not that of the Clerk of the House.
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege. The " Bulletin des Agriculteurs" a weekly newspaper of Montreal, published, on July 9, 1931, an editorial dealing with my attitude towards the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), amending the act in connection with the penalty provided for adulterating butter.
I would have discussed this question last evening, when the bill came up; but seeing that the hon. member for Compton was not in his seat then, I find it necessary now to explain my stand by raising a question of privilege. It is stated, among other things, in this editorial that I am in favour of adulterating butter-
It is the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, who says "that is so"! I had a higher appreciation of his judgment.
The editorial adds: "Mr. Dupuis, if you
wish to foster adulteration, say so openly."
With your kind indulgence, sir, I shall refer to the remarks I made on June 30 last, when the bill was before the house. I then stated that I was in favour of the bill; that I congratulated the hon. member for Compton for having brought up this question; that as a lawyer, I was aware, through experience, that dealers in cities adulterated butter by mixing cocoa oil, and that to inflict a heavy fine would be only right. However, on the other hand, seeing that this bill imposes the same penalty on all those who violate the act, and that in sections 5 and 7 especially, it is provided that all those who are convicted of having more than 16 per cent of water in their butter must be punished, I stated that the minimum penalty of $500 mentioned in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton should not be pressed, in order to leave some discretion to the judge who could determine whether the farmers have-