Mr. SPEAKER:

When the house divided yesterday on Mr. Cockeram's motion for production of certain papers, Mr. Bracken (Leader of the Opposition) rose from his seat and his name was called by the Clerk Assistant and recorded by the Clerk, who repeated Mr. Bracken's name. This repetition of a member's name is an announcement to the house that the member's vote has been recorded. The Clerk is sworn to record the res gestae on things done in the house. When another member's vote, namely Mr. McGregor's, had been recorded and duly announced, Mr. Bracken rose again and stated he had voted inadvertently as he had been paired with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) during the latter's absence in England. He suggested that his vote be deleted, and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Usley), the leader of the house (Mr. Mackenzie), and several other members agreed that this should be done. No opposition being taken, the Clerk then rubbed off the mark he had made opposite Mr. Bracken's name, which was not included in the division list.

Privilege-Mr. White (Hastings)

The Clerk's action was not a new departure. Bourinot, 4th edition, page 382, says:

In the Canadian Commons the Clerk at the table has been on more than one occasion allowed to strike off the name of a member who is recorded and then admits having been" paired.

In 1926, when Mr. Bird voted though he had been paired, he announced his error after the result of the division had been given out and the Speaker had declared the motion carried. There was no possibility at that time of making any correction and the Speaker was right in refusing to allow that the vote be withdrawn. The Speaker then said:

The rule is that when a vote has been recorded, when the result has been proclaimed and when the motion has been declared carried or lost, that expresses the judgment of the house.

-and he refused to entertain Mr. Bird's request that the recorded vote be deleted. Had Mr. Bracken's request been made after the house's decision had been declared by the Speaker, it would certainly have been refused, but I see no objection in having his name struck out immediately after he had inadvertently voted.

Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, by consent of the whole house, I am sure that the conduct of the leader of the opposition was of the most honourable kind.

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to compliment you upon making a most intelligent ruling on the incident. If the time ever comes when the rules of this house preclude the withdrawal of an inadvertent vote when the obvious intention was clear, it is time that the rules were altered. I compliment Your Honour upon your decision.

Mr. M. J. COLBVvELL (Rosetown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, as the member who raised the question yesterday, may I say that I did so only to have the rules clarified. I too am satisfied with your ruling.

Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

Mr. Speaker, may I crave your indulgence and the indulgence of the house to rise on a question of privilege which affects the rights of every member of this house.

In the press of yesterday and this morning appears a press release by Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, which reads in part as follows:

Asked to comment on allegations that the wartime prices and trade board used gestapo methods in the course of its enforcement activities, Donald Gordon, chairman of the wartime prices and trade board, stated bluntly to-day that such statements were utter nonsense.

Further he stated:

On the other hand we have this type of wild accusation about gestapo procedure.

Further he stated:

I resent strongly the use of the word "gestapo" and I do not propose to let it pass without expressing my objection to such loose and improper language.

These remarks by Mr. Gordon refer to a speech made by myself in this house on May 21, reported at- page 1726 of Hansard. The press statement adds:

Mr. Gordon was commenting on remarks made in the Commons last night by G. S. White, Profressive Conservative member for Hastings-'eterborough.

We in this chamber, Mr. Slpeaker, are members of parliament sent here by the people to represent them. In the discharge of this high duty the most valuable right which we possess is our freedom of speech in debate. It is a right which we must ever be jealous to guard ; for it is the foundation of our effectiveness as members here. Its fundamental importance is recognized in the immunity which we are given from legal action for any statement made in this chamber. I must submit, sir, that our independence in this chamber should include complete freedom from attack, abuse or censure from any paid public official whom we may happen to mention in the course of our duties in debate here. I construe Mr. Gordon's statement as an admonition to me, a representative of the people, that I must not again in the terms I use or in any other way express my views of his administration in terms objectionable to himself.

. I resent any such admonition or any attempt by Mr. Gordon to dictate the language to be used in this chamber. I regard it as high impertinence and an insolence directed against every member of this house. The proper, person to answer any attack made upon anjf branch of the public service in this house is the responsible minister. It will be a most serious thing if the time ever comes when a member of parliament before criticizing a branch of the public service, must first consider the abuse which he may draw down upon himself from the officials of that service.

I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of being instructed or lectured in any way by Mr. Gordon, a public servant. The remarks made by Mr. Gordon are simply a further indication of the gestapo methods of the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board in attempting

Railways and Shipping

to castigate a member of parliament. The language I used was neither loose nor improper, but accurately and justly described the actions of the officials who operate under the direction of Mr. Gordon. Apparently Mr. Gordon is above the government and the minister who administers the department under which the board is placed.

Order.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member has

stated his point of privilege, and I do not think he should go on, upon a question of privilege, to reflect on members of the government.

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

I

am not reflecting on the government. This is the only opportunity I have to answer Mr. Gordon, and I submit that this is the proper place for me to answer him. I have only one further sentence to add, and it is this: I submit it is high time that the chairman of the wartime prices and trade board was reminded that he is a public servant and not supreme czar.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon.

gentleman use the word "geetapo" the other day, and I was remiss in my duty in not rising at once in my -place and objecting to the use of that language. When conscientious and responsible officials of the public service are called by such names as "nazis" or "Hitlers" or "gestapo", I will not, with regard to any officer in my department, object to their taking public exception to that type of abusive language. The only thing for which I blame myself is for not having taken immediate exception to that abusive language. The only abuse which was used in this case by any of the parties concerned in it was that involved in the use of the term "gestapo" by the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. White).

Mr. FERGUSON:

And was it correct?

Mr. HOMUTH': Mr. Speaker-

Oh, oh.

Mr. HOMUTH:

This sort of quacking

from the far end of the house is heard very often. Let me say to the little minds down there that if their mentality is the mentality of waddling ducks I wish they would not express it here.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. To what is the hon. member speaking?

Mr. HOMUTH:

A question of privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is the hon. gentleman

rising on a question of privilege?

Mr. HOMUTH:

I rise on a question of privilege, and, as an elected member of the house, I register my opposition and, may I say, my disgust at the fact that a member of the cabinet, who in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is leading the government, states that he has omitted to do something, in the place he occupies, where it ought to have been done, with regard to something which was said in this house, but he is quite prepared to allow somebody else, a servant of this house, to answer for him. I say-

Order.

Mr. HOMUTH:

I am not to be stopped by that kind of thing. This is a question of privilege.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Where is it? What is the privilege?