Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

By leave of the house I beg to move:

That the recommendations contained in the first report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce presented to the house this day be concurred in.

Mr. BOTH WELL:

The report says 1,000 copies. Was it not agreed upon this morning that it should be 1,500 instead of 1,000?

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

My recollection is 1,000. If there is any error, we can have it corrected.

Mr. STEVENS moved:

That the special committee appointed to inquire into price spreads and mass buying be empowered to print its day to day proceedings and evidence in the English and French languages for distribution to the committee and to the members of the Senate and House of Commons.

He said: This is merely clarifying a previous motion made to that effect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second point I wish to raise is one of privilege affecting more the privileges of the house than the personal privileges of a member, but it falls within rule 41 as to decorum in debate. The hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), as reported at page 996 of the debates of March 5, said this:

So that a half-witted, blunt or ignorant deputy minister, such as were to be found under various governments and even to this day.

Those are not words which, in the light of what has already been stated to the house, should have been used. May I be permitted to quote from page 4908 of Hansard of May 11, 1933, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), on a question somewhat similar to this, spoke as follows:

Mr. Chairman, I think that ought to be withdrawn. There are certain amenities that should be respected. Has this parliament degenerated to that sort of thing? I just leave it to you, sir. If a member can talk that way about a man who cannot defend him-

Privilege-Mr. Chevrier

self on the floor of this house, about his whiskers, then all I can say is that this parliament has reached a low level.

I quote from the same page, 490S, where the chairman said:

I would ask the hon. member ... to remember one thing; in England the House of Commons is considered a gentleman's club, and that should apply to Canada also.

May I also cite Bourinot, fourth edition, at page 358:

All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the speakers of the British and Canadian houses have always treated them as breaches of order.

I mean, sir, that personages of high official station would include, under our parliamentary procedure, such persons as deputy ministers. I submit that even though this parliament may have certain immunities as far as excessive language in this house is concerned, such language should not be used as against those who have not the privilege of defending themselves in this house; and if the hon. member cannot be asked to withdraw at least he should be censured.

Mr. POULIOT:

Sir, I rise to a point of

order.

You would!

Mr. POULIOT:

The hon. gentleman has

quoted some excerpts from a speech delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa). We stand here, sir, by the rules of the house and the standing orders. May I quote to you on this point of order standing order 41 which has not been amended since 1927 and which reads thus:

No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

The gentlemen who have been referred to by the hon. member for Labelle, and on behalf of whom the distinguished senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) has just spoken, are not included in this restrictive enumeration. No one of them is His Majesty, no one of them belongs to the royal family, no one of them is the governor or the person administering the government of Canada, no one of them is a member of either house. Therefore the rule by which we all stand, rule 41, does not include those gentlemen. I am in full sympathy with them, but I contend

that what is said by any hon. member, the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) no more than any other, is not the regulation under which we sit here and debate questions that are submitted to us. I contend that any hon. member can express his own view, but a distinction should be made between any hon. member's personal view, whether he belongs to the cabinet or is a back-bencher, and the standing orders of the house. Such views are not a standing order of the house. This order contains the enumeration by which all members are governed. For the ten years that I have been a member here no hon. member has attacked the governor, no one has attacked His Majesty, they all observe this rule. The hon. member for Labelle, for whom I have great respect, enjoys freedom of speech. I believe that a member of the House of Commons is entitled-

Oh, oh.

Mr. POULIOT:

Sir, I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to put out of the house the asses that are braying so loudly. When I say that I do not wish to cast any reflection upon any hon. member of the house. Sir, what I say is, that the rules of the house are contained in this green book. They are the law of this chamber. No member may do anything which is not permitted by those rules; when he does you can rightly call him to order, he has to stand by your ruling. I have great respect for opinions expressed by hon. members, other than by banging their desks; when a member shows his intelligence by reason and argument I have great respect for his views; but I do not govern myself by, and no one can compel me to be governed by the views expressed by an hon. member personally. All we have to do is to stand by the rules of the house. In conclusion my contention is-