1. The district inspector of customs and excise reports that Mr. Eden possesses a sufficient knowledge of French to satisfactorily perform the duties of collector.

2. Yes.

Mr. CHEVRIER:

When will the Minister of Public Works place on and in the federal building recently erected on Ouellette street, in the city of Windsor, Ontario, sign-plates bearing French inscriptions, corresponding to the sign-plates bearing English inscriptions affixed on and in the said building?

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

Representations

with regard to sign-plates bearing French inscriptions being placed on and in the new public building at Windsor, Ontario, will be given due consideration at the proper time.

Mr. STANLEY:

What amount was paid by the government of Canada to Arthur G. Slaght, K.C., from and including the year 1926 to and including the year 1930?

1. For what purpose was the Canadian government steamship Citadelle built?

2. Upon whose representations or requests was this boat constructed?

3. What type of boat was requested?

4. Who prepared the plans and under whose instructions were they prepared?

5. Were the parties responsible for the representations or requests consulted and their approval of the plans secured before this construction was commenced?

6. How were tenders called?

7. Who tendered and for what price?

8. Who was the successful tenderer?

9. What was the price?

10. What moneys have been paid to them to

date?

11. Were there any extras? If so, what were they and what did they cost?

12. Was any work done for private interests in the port of Quebec last fall?

13. If so, for whom and what amount was paid by these private interests for the services rendered by this boat?

14. Upon whose request was this boat trans-fei'red to the port of Saint John last fall and for what purpose?

15. While at Saint John was any work done for private interests?

16. If so, for whom, what payments were made by these private interests and to whom were the moneys paid?

17. Upon whose request was the boat brought back to the port of Quebec this spring. 1933?

18. For what purpose was it brought back?

19. Has the Department of Marine or the government made any arrangements, tacit or otherwise, to do work for private interests in the port of Quebec?

20. If so, what are they-viz-for whom and what consideration?

21. Has the government gone into the towing business?

22. If so, for what reason?

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask

the right hon. the acting leader of the house (Sir George Perley) whether Canada has received the disarmament message of President Roosevelt. The newspapers give a list of fifty-four nations to which this message has been sent and the name of Canada does not appear in this list. I should like to know whether Canada has received that message.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

The President's

communication, as my hon. friend will have seen by the press, was sent to the heads of all the different governments of the world. In our case, as one of the constituent parts of the British commonwealth of nations, this communication was sent to His Majesty the King, and a copy of the same has been transmitted to the Governor General for the consideration of the government of Canada.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It was not sent to the

Imperial government?

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

No.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

It was sent to His

Majesty?

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

It was sent to

His Majesty on behalf of all parts of the British commonwealth; a copy of it has been sent by the King to His Excellency, the Governor General, and it has been transmitted to the government of Canada for its consideration.

5154 COMMONS

Privilege-Mr. Chewier

Mr. Gobeil

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):

I rise to a question of privilege, not so much one that affects the honour of any hon. member of this house, 'but one that may be referred to under standing order 41 in reference to decorum in debate. I want to quote the words of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) as reported in Hansard on page 5057. It is quite true that these words are not addressed to any other hon. member, but in speaking of a certain article that appeared in a newspaper, the hon. member for Compton on a question of privilege used the words that the representative of the newspaper-

-Is not only a dirty individual, but a dirty, crooked liar.

Under the rules of the house this is one of the most unparliamentary expressions that could be used. Your Honour ihas been pleased on other occasions, indeed, only within the last few months, to rule in matters of this kind. Let me refer to Hansard at page 3630, where an hon. member made certain remarks about another newspaper correspondent. Your Honour was pleased to rule, as reported on page 372S, that the hon. member had attacked the reporter, of course not a member of this house, and Your Honour was pleased to say further:

I therefore direct the Editor of the Debates to expunge from the record-

So and so-the paragraphs in question. At a later date there was another ruling which Your Honour was pleased to make and which will appear in Hansard at page 4908 where the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), anxious to maintain the high reputation and character of this house, was pleased to say:

If a member can talk that way about a man who cannot defend himself on the floor of this house, about his whiskers, then all I can say is that this parliament has reached a low level.

Another decision which Your Honour was pleased to give as to striking out from the record a similar expression. It is quite true that May states:

If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the house or the chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the house he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals.

Let me submit that in the use of those * words-

Or injurious to the character of individuals.

[Sir George Perley.l

-one cannot dissociate the feelings or character of a member of the house, and I for one, who have the highest regard for the traditions of parliament, for its rules and precedents which you have with so much dignity so far upheld, resent extremely 'that words of that kind should be used with reference to a man who cannot defend himself upon the floor of the house. It would be very difficult, if such words may be used, to find a line of demarcation as to how far one can go in describing people outside. An hon member is well within his rights to say in a few words what he thinks of anyone, but I ask that some decency be maintained in the use of expressions. I therefore request you, sir, in view of the precedents you have established in the decisions you have given to rule that the words complained of be stricken from the record.