Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I read in this morning's Ottawa Citizen the following statement under the title, "Will probe charge of waste only if M.P. makes claim," which appears in the first column on the first page of the issue:

Against the government on division were Progressive Conservatives, C.C.F., Social Credit, several independents in the "rebel" corner-

According to the Oxford dictionary the word "rebel" means:

A person who rises in arms against, resists, or refuses allegiance to the established government; person or thing that resists authority or control.

I have no doubt that the 67,000 people living in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house will resent this insinuation, and in their names, as well as in my own, I protest strongly against it. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not at all afraid of what this paper may write about me. I do not want its support and I do not fear its insinuations, but I have always been of the opinion that a newspaper worthy of the name at least should be honest and fair even toward those who have the right to support a different point of view.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I wish to refer to a matter which concerns the house. My attention has been drawn to the heading of an article which appears in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Tuesday, March 9, 1943, reading as follows: Speaker foils move to probe Thompson case. Opposition groups ask in vain for inquiry by commons committee.

I realize that Your Honour the Speaker is not in position to draw the attention of the

house to this article, but it has been drawn to my attention and I think it is only right that I should make clear to those who are outside the house as well as to hon. members in the house that Your Honour the Speaker had nothing to do, as far as I can realize, with what is described as the foiling of a move to probe a case that was brought before the house yesterday. I have been reading the article and I cannot see anything in it which really justifies the heading that has been placed upon it. I do not want to attach undue importance to it, but I think it is due to Your Honour that the country should know that the Speaker of the House had not prevented any inquiry being made into the Thompson case.

Mr. GRAYDON:

No doubt the article

refers to the fact that the Speaker had ruled out of order the motion which is dealt with in the article. I have not seen the article myself.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It conveys the impression that His Honour the Speaker was responsible for some inquiry not being permitted. His Honour the Speaker discharged his duties as Speaker in seeing that the rules of the house were obeyed and in giving a decision on the motion that was before the house in accordance with those rules. It is most important that no impression should go abroad that His Honour the Speaker, who is the presiding officer of this house and who in the discharge of the duties of his office must preside impartially, has been partial where in fact such is not the ease.

Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries):

I wish to table the report of the committee headed by the Honourable Mr. Justice Sidney A. Smith, of Vancouver, appointed by order in council of January 13, 1942, P.C. 288, for the disposal of immobilized vessels and equipment owned and operated by persons of the Japanese race in British Columbia.

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I have information from Vancouver that wood that was selling at $9 per cord has been raised to S13 per cord. The increase in price, it was said, was on instructions from the wartime prices and trade board. Can the minister inform the house whether such instructions for raising the price were given, and if so, why?

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

I made some inquiry about this matter. The price was not raised on instructions from the wartime prices and trade board, but it would probably be true to say that the price was raised with the authorization of the board. One has to understand the situation there to appreciate it. This particular kind of wood, bushwood fuel, it is called, was sold in very small quantities until recently because most of the wood fuel required came from sawdust or mill wood, by-products of the lumber industry. When this latter fuel became very scarce the other form of fuel became more important, and as there were few suppliers, and they supplied only very small quantities, individual price ceilings meant very little. A maximum price for the kind of wood referred to by the hon. member was accordingly set for the whole zone or area. That maximum price was fixed at $13 a cord, the price that was deemed to be necessary to assure a supply.

Mr. MacINNIS:

Is it illegal to sell this fuel in Vancouver below $13 a cord?

Mr. ILSLEY:

No.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

May I call the minister's attention to the situation obtaining on the border in New Brunswick? The price ceiling on hardwood fuel in New Brunswick is $12 a cord. In the United States, immediately across the line, the price is $15 a cord. Canadian producers are and have been for some time carrying fuel wood from New Brunswick across the border into towns such as Houlton and Calais, Maine, where they receive $15 a cord plus the exchange. It is feared that if this situation continues into another year, no fuel wood will be available at border

points in New Brunswick. What does the wartime prices and trade board intend to do about it?