He is reading from the 1927
debates, when another phase entirely of the question was under discussion. Oh, I know of the 1927 debates and recollect them very
clearly. In 1927 the discussion arose upon addresses which had been delivered by right hon. gentlemen opposite. One was by the right hon. the Prime Minister of that day in Toronto; that was under discussion. I was then discussing another phase of the question entirely, particularly that the right hon. the Prime Minister had pledged himself publicly to submit the imperial conference resolutions for the approval of the house, and had afterwards refused to do so. He himself and the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lapointe) had given interpretations which I did not think were clearly expressed in the resolutions, as I have stated. My own opinion with regard to those resolutions is expressed and their real implications are contained in addresses which I gave in December, 1926, and also in May, 1928, from which I read to this house, and I am quite prepared to submit what I said on all three occasions to the judgment of the right hon. gentleman and to the house.
I did not state that the right hon. gentleman had deceived the house. I said that his comments were due to a misapprehension on his part of the real tenor of those discussions. Certainly I adhere to everything I then said, so far as my memory is clear as to what I did say.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-and it is a question of facts now,-I have the right to say what the facts were.
My hon. friend said that I did not refer to the debates of 1927, but if he will look at Hansard of May 24, containing the remarks to which he took exception, he will see that it was exactly the debates of 1927 that I was referring to. I said:
Those who were in this parliament in 1927 will remember that my right hon. leader and I were strongly criticized, not perhaps by my right hon. friend-
Meaning the leader of the opposition.
[DOT]-for I do not believe he took part in that debate; he was absent from the house-but by the then leader, the Hon. Mr. Guthrie, and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
And it was in that debate that my hon. friend uttered the words which I have just mentioned-"disruption and destruction." That had nothing to do with the fact that the report had not been submitted to parliament for approval. My hon. friend was emphatic; he has a good memory and must remember having used the words "silly," "foolish," "half-baked," and such. I learned some words during that debate.
Subtopic: IMPERIAL CONFERENCE OF 1926-DESCRIPTION AS SEPARATIST MOVEMENT FROM BRITISH COMMONWEALTH