Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

It is with regret that on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I have to inform the house of the death of one of our most esteemed colleagues, the member for St. Mary, Montreal, Doctor Hermas Deslauriers. Doctor Deslauriers was one of the deans of the house, having come to parliament twenty-four years ago and having been reelected at every subsequent general election. This remarkable tribute of confidence from one of the largest constituencies of the metropolis of Canada speaks more eloquently than any words of the sterling qualities, the fine character and the public spirit of our late friend.

In his extensive medical practice Doctor Deslauriers came in daily contact particularly with the working men of Montreal, and he was always ready to defend their interests and present their claims to the proper solution of social problems.

In this parliament Doctor Deslauriers has always been a loyal, conscientious, courteous and genial colleague, and his passing will be deeply regretted.

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, to Mrs. Deslauriers and her children I wish to convey the sympathy of the house in their sad bereavement, and I ask Your Honour to do so on our behalf.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

My colleagues and I desire to be associated with the tribute which the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has just paid to the memory of the member for St. Mary, Montreal. We wish to join as well in the expression of sympathy which is to be conveyed to his widow and family.

Doctor Deslauriers was a familiar figure in this house, although in recent years his voice was not often heard. As the Minister of Justice has said, he has been continuously a member of this house since 1917, a very long record indeed. It is a tribute to his popularity among the people whom he represented.

In performing this sad duty, one cannot but reflect on the high mortality rate exacted by public life. Since the last election, five of the members of this house have been called in death. This sad fact indicates only too clearly the strain and stress placed upon those who undertake public service. It is, if I may say so, a reminder to all of us here that by tolerance and moderation in this house we may help to relieve in some measure the strain which is incident to public service.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

On behalf of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group I express our deepest regret at the death of Doctor Deslauriers. He served this country in the capacity of a member of this house for twenty-four years, and, as the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated, he did so to the benefit of the community which he represented. We wish therefore to join in the expression of regret at the loss of a member of this house and of sympathy to his bereaved family.

Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):

The members of the Social Credit group also desire to associate themselves with the government and the opposition in their expressions of regret at the loss of this good man. We desire to extend to his bereaved ones our sympathy in their hour of grief.

Hon. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Secretary of State): I wish to add a few remarks to the truly appropriate words with which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) expressed the sorrow felt by the house at the death of the member for St. Mary's.

Doctor Deslauriers was a personal friend of mine; we entered parliament on the same day. He was one of the senior members of the house. The immense majorities by which he was returned at every general election show how highly his constituents approved his conduct as a public man and appreciated his great worth.

Deslauriers had no enemies. Humble, modest, deeply devoted to the cause of the people, he was also the poor man's doctor. Innately kind and compassionate, he was ever ready to do a good turn to all who knocked at his door.

Privilege-Mr. Cockeram

By the people among whom he lived, his passing will be deeply felt. He will be long regretted. To his bereaved family and to his electors whom he loved, I offer my most sincere sympathy.

Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sorrow that I learned this morning of the death of one of my neighbours in this house, Dr. Deslauriers, who has just been spoken of in such eloquent words of well-deserved praise. He was not an old man, having died in his sixty-second year. Born in a family of farmers at St. Charles de Richelieu, a parish of patriots, he owned a model farm in the eastern townships and nothing gave him greater pleasure than to show to his colleagues the magnificent ears of wheat he produced on it.

He was the right-hand man of Hon. Mederic Martin, at one time a member of this house and mayor of Montreal, and now a member of the Legislative Council of the province of Quebec, whom he succeeded as member for St. Mary's division in the House of Commons. The majorities by which he was returned bear witness to his popularity. His constituency had elected a Liberal member ever since 1896. The largest majority given prior to his election was 2,177, for Mr. Martin, in 1911. In 1917 Dr. Deslauriers was returned by acclamation; in 1921, by a majority of 10,757; in 1925, by 10,704; in 1926, by 11,957; in 1930, by 10,444; in 1935, by 5,639, and finally in 1940- a striking tribute to his popularity-by 18,400, one of the largest majorities, probably the second largest, in the whole country. He was, as has been noted, an excellent physician and throughout his constituency he was known as the poor man's doctor. However, his reputation extended beyond that. He also performed wonders in the field of agriculture. The immense majorities he obtained were doubtless due to the fact that, as a doctor, he had brought into the world quite a number of his electors who showed him their gratitude by voting for him.

Dr. Deslauriers took an active interest in social matters. He never lost sight of the interests of his electors, whom he met each weekend, and he will be remembered as a conscientious member of parliament, ever faithful to his duty, and a model Liberal. His passing is regretted by all who knew him. I offer my sincere sympathies to Mrs. Deslauriers and to her children, one of whom is a fellow-member of the bar.

Mr. ALAN COCKERAM (York South):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege, to discuss a matter which I am convinced involves a principle of the utmost importance. I am a member of this House of Commons; I am also an officer in his majesty's forces, in the Canadian active army. In my capacity as a member of parliament I attended a meeting of the political party to which I belong in the riding which I represent. I was asked to discuss the status and development of Canada's war effort as I saw it and the present military situation in Canada. As a member of parliament, answerable to the people of this country and the people of my riding, I believed that it was my right and my duty to comment on the situation as I appreciated it.

What I said did not meet with the approval of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). He wrote a letter to me which raises a very important question as to my personal privileges as a member of this house, and also in regard to the status of every member of parliament who wears his majesty's uniform. The issue raised thereby and therein is of the utmost importance to me and to every member who now wears or may in future wear his majesty's uniform of any of our armed forces. As it affects others besides myself, and as the course to be followed is one which should be clearly understood, I place the facts before the members of this house and ask for their guidance.

I have deferred raising this question before, partly on account of my military duties and partly because, as I am free to confess, it seemed to me that the minister's letter was more or less of an ultimatum demanding that I resign my commission, or keep quiet-that is, unless I undertake to avoid any discussion of the most important of all subjects for discussion at this time. After considerable thought I have decided that this is a question of great principle and magnitude, upon which I should not compromise, and I rise therefore not only for my own benefit but for the benefit of other members of parliament now in uniform or who may be in uniform in the future, so that they will know what their position really is.

I will now read the letter written to me by the Minister of National Defence. It is dated April 16, and was delivered to me on April 22. The ietter is as follows:

Ottawa, 16th April, 1941. Dear Major Cockeram:- _

A newspaper report of a speech which you made in Toronto was brought to my attention

Privilege-Mr. Cocker am

the other day. I felt that it called for some notice by me.

I am writing you now not as Minister of .National Defence but as a fellow member of parliament and as one who has occupied the dual position which you now hold, namely, representing a constituency in the legislature and at the same time being an officer in his majesty's forces.

I know it is hard to define the line between these two functions, but I really think that there is a line and a very definite one between them. Your duties as a member of parliament entitle you to express your opinions in the fullest possible way on all public matters, but your obligations as an officer are governed by King's Regulations and Orders which require that an officer restrain himself from any expression of opinion regarding the administration of the army otherwise than through the recpgnized channels, namely, by way of complaint to superior officers.

Obviously, an officer who is not a member of parliament cannot, consistently with his obligations and while serving, express himself publicly as you have done at a political gathering and if an officer, simply by being a member of parliament, is not bound by the regulations, then officers who are so bound have a right to feel that they are being discriminated against in requiring that they adhere to the rules.

In this respect, the two functions, if you want to exercise them to the full, must inevitably come in conflict, and the only way in which a man can carry out his functions is to decide that the exercise of his rights as a member of parliament will be limited by his obligations to the service.

If be cannot do that, then obviously the 'man-fashion" thing to do is to abandon the attempt to hold both positions. The army obviously cannot make "fish of one and flesh of another" and there is nothing in king's regulations which excepts members of parliament, or anybody else for that matter, from the age-old restriction which prohibits officers discussing publicly matters which affect the administration of the service.

I think that it is possible for a man to perform his duty to his constituents and at the same time to refrain from exercising special privileges as an officer which are not open to his brother officers, but the individual must, of course, decide whether he is willing to do that.

I have already had before me the case of a member of parliament who did not happen to be of your political faith, who expressed opinions in public regarding administration and who was dealt with promptly and told that, if he felt that his duties as a member of parliament prevented him from observing Ins obligations as an officer, then there was no alternative but for him to choose which function he felt he should perform and that in so far as there was conflict, the rules governing the conduct of officers would have to be observed while he remained an officer.

Mr. TOMLINSON:

I wonder if the hon. member would mention the name of the officer?

Mr. COCKERAM:

I do not know the name; this is the minister's letter. To continue:

I just mention this to let you know that you are not being singled out in any way for this note of caution.

I want to believe that you did not understand just what the situation was, but, as I say, I am writing you as a fellow member of parliament to give you the views I have just expressed for your consideration as a citizen of Canada.

I trust that you can adapt yourself to the situation so that you can carry on in both capacities, but I did think that I should remind you of what you must realize and of what you may have inadvertently overlooked in the instance in question.

For obvious reasons, I have not discussed at all the merits of what you are reported to have said. If you are a member of parliament, these things will be discussed in the proper place, but if you are an officer, the subject is not open for discussion.

Yours very truly,

J. L. Ralston.

I do not intend to discuss the viewpoint expressed in the letter, which speaks for itself. I merely wish to point out one very contradictory aspect of this letter. It starts by stating that it is not being written to me by the Minister of National Defence in his capacity as Minister of National Defence, but merely as a member of parliament. It then goes on to say, however, that disciplinary action has been taken against another member of this house. The Minister of National Defence, who in his letter first assures me that he is not writing as such, then makes this comment:

I just mention this to let you know that you are not being singled out in any way for this note of caution.

This comment makes it abundantly clear that the Minister of National Defence did not intend me to treat this letter merely as an expression of his opinion as a private member, but that he did intend it to be received as a note of caution and warning from the Minister of National Defence in his capacity as such. And as Minister of National Defence he then went on to lay before me the alternative that I must remain silent upon the general public aspect of military matters, although they are an inseparable part of Canada's war effort, or resign my commission.

I challenge that position. The Minister of National Defence says that at least one other hon. member has been similarly threatened. I believe it is my duty, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to lay the facts before you. I think this is a matter upon which there should be a clear understanding on the part of every hon. member of this house. It is a subject which will assume increasing importance as time goes on. I think it is a matter of supreme importance that the democratic principle of the right and duty of members of parliament truly to express themselves on public matters must prevail. I have not criticized my superior officers. I have criticized matters of public policy, but

Privilege-Mr. Cockeram

have not divulged any information that has come to me in my capacity as a member of the armed forces; and on that basis my remarks are wholly in order and fully justified.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

I had not the faintest idea, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was to be brought up to-day. I have seen the hon. member quite a number of times, but he has never mentioned this matter which I do feel was something with regard to which some notice should have been given if it were to be discussed.

I say to the hon. member quite frankly that before I wrote him the letter I did have some consultation, though not with anyone in authority in the Canadian forces; I endeavoured to find out what had been the practice in Great Britain. I was informed that there, in a case which seemed to me somewhat similar, the course which I adopted with regard to my hon. friend had been taken by the then minister; that is to say, not to write him an official letter, not to- give instructions to officers that he be brought up on the carpet, as it were, to answer for anything that had been said, but simply to write- him a note in, a personal capacity in- order that he might have the views -of one who happened to be a member of this house and who also happened to occupy the position of Minister of National Defence; and who, some years ago, was in somewhat the same position when he happened to be a member of the- provincial-legislature and at the same time an officer of his majesty's forces. And I wrote the letter in that spirit.

My hon. friend says the letter was not written as the letter of a private member at all, and that it was intended as a threa-t. I say to my hon. friend that if a threat had been intended I would not have bothered to write the letter; I would have taken the usual military procedure in -this connection in order to have the matter properly dealt with by the military authorities. But I did not do that in this case; I wrote the hon. member.

Mr. COCKERAM:

Mr. Speaker-

Order.

Mr. RALSTON:

I wrote my hon. friend

what I thought was a courteous letter; what I thought was a letter which might go from one member of this house to another; what I thought might be regarded as a letter from one officer and gentleman to another officer and gentleman. And I am a little surprised that without notice at all my hon. friend should bring up the matter in this house in this way.

I am not going to deal with the merits of the case this afternoon. I do not know what

disposition my hon. friend desires made of this matter. But I am going to say that I recognize, as well as anyone in this house, the difficulties which confront members who happen also to be officers of his majesty's forces; and I think I have been just as tolerant as I possibly could be in that respect, having regard to what I consider to be the public duties of members. But I do feel that my hon. friend and members of this house generally ought to realize that there cannot be discrimination between those who are members of his majesty's forces; that a member of parliament cannot put on the uniform and still transgress or infringe upon the usual regulations that govern officers in regard to the discussion of what may be regarded as matters of administration and policy. It seems to me that would not be fair to the officers in the forces generally; and I really do not believe my hon. friend asserts that as a proper principle upon which he might insist. As I said in my letter I believe an officer can reconcile the two positions. I realize that he has to be a bit careful about it, because there may be questions on which he would like to express an opinion but which may contravene what are regarded as the usual military regulations, and regarding which he may have to keep silent; but that is a matter to be decided by himself. He has selected the two positions.

The other position-and perhaps this is the position that ought to be taken by the department, though I do not think they have ever been forced to take it in England and I would hope we should never be forced to take it here-would be to call upon a member of parliament to choose one or the other, whether to continue as a member of his majesty's forces, or to continue as a member of parliament. I do not think there is need for that. But if my hon. friend feels that an issue should be made of it at this time, and some rule laid down, I suppose that will have to be done.

Since I have taken this matter up I find that a practice has existed in the British parliament which might be of assistance to hon. members in this house-I am speaking now not to my hon. friend alone, but also to any other hon. members who happen to be officers in the army-under which the Secretary of State for War endeavours to meet members who happen to be officers as well, to discuss any problem with them frankly and clearly, but not in the public way in which my hon. friend sought to discuss matters of policy in the speech to which he has referred. That may be the way out. It is only a compromise, of course, but it is one which, it seems to me, seeks to give a fair and reasonable opportunity for the expression of opinions on the

Privilege-Mr. Cockeram

part of a member representing a constituency, and eliminates the discrimination which would otherwise exist if a member of parliament who is an officer were allowed to express his opinions, while other officers were not.

Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):

They have a national government over there.

Mr. RALSTON:

What is the difference?

Mr. POULIOT:

They had no election.

Mr. RALSTON:

I am sure that that interruption does not add very much to the debate. I do not know what it has to do with the matter.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

As a matter of information, would the minister allow me a question? Is it not true that members of his majesty's armed forces in Great Britain who are also members of parliament have raised in the House of Commons questions of national public policy with respect to the defence of Great Britain, both before and since the war?

Mr. RALSTON:

In the House of Commons,

/es.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I do not know that there is much distinction. There may be. They have, as I understand it, raised questions of public policy with respect to the defence of Great Britain and the armed forces, and in regard to public policy generally. But I am not aware of the question having arisen with respect to speeches made outside the House of Commons. I am frank about that.