Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I find in Hansard for Friday last, on page 3301, the following exchange:

Mrs. Strum: Are the insurance companies

the government?

Mr. Gardiner: No, they are not; but they

have influence in nine provinces.

I was in the house, sir, when this exchange took place. Had I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) say what is recorded in Hansard I would have risen immediately on a question of privilege to deny emphatically the assertion that the insurance companies have influence in all nine provinces. I certainly did not hear the minister make any reference to the provinces on Friday evening. The discussion had to do with federal legislation, and I understood the minister to say, "The insurance companies have influence." Whatever was said on Friday evening, and whatever influence the insurance companies may have in other provinces or with the federal government, I think it is apparent that they have no influence on the Saskatchewan government, as is clear from the kind of legislation enacted in my province.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I hold in my hand a communist sheet of Vancouver called the Vancouver News-Herald, of April 14. It is surprising how intolerant are some protagonists of human rights. They refer to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) and myself, and they say about myself that I am "another in the house's lunatic fringe." We are called the "three crackpots" and the "three 'nut' M.P.'s to smear such a list of distinction" as

I read, and they say that the effort "backfired as one of the funniest incidents of the session".

That paper has no official representative in the press gallery, sir, but I understand that this was sent by the nigger in the woodpile, the peevish and rancorous bootblack of the demoted right honourable.

But here is something else. I rise to another question of privilege. This time it is the Winnipeg Free Press, whose Ottawa correspondent sent an honest report of what had happened in the house on April 12. The article I am to mention appeared in the Free Press the day after, April 13, the day Hansard came out. On the 14th one of the editors of this paper wrote this sentence:

After reading Mr. Pouliot's speech in the House of Commons-

He could not have read it because he did not have the Hansard in Winnipeg by that time.

-we were almost ready to join the Montreal Star in its current crusade to protect liberty by abridging it.

That is what the Winnipeg Free Press has done. It goes on:

For if the Quebec member is right, this country is indeed "rotten wth communism", and not only this country but this newspaper.

That newspaper may be, but I never said the country was; I never used that expression. I protest strongly against these pharisees, these hypocrites, men without any sincerity who are ready to protect Tim Buck and all the subversive elements in the country but always have insults for those who abide by the law.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I would ask the hon. member to state his question of privilege, if he has one, as briefly as possible.

Mr. POULIOT:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. It goes on:

Mr. Pouliot, in his list of communists or communist dupes-

I did not use the expression "communist dupes", although the names of those who appear on the list are dupes. I say it now but I did not say it then. It was not "my" list, but the list that was sent by the Civil Liberties League to the members of parliament who were on the human rights committee. Therefore I say that the editorial staff of the Winnipeg Free Press are rotten, malfeasant, and hypocrites.

3352

Inquiries oj the Ministry

Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:

That the name of Mr. Kuhl be substituted for that of Mr. Johnston on the special committee on prices.

That the name of Mr. Beaudoin be substituted for that of Mr. Cleaver on the special committee on prices.

Mr. KNOWLES:

Explain.

Mr. ARSENAULT:

The purpose of this bill is that whenever in any act of the parliament of Canada, or in any order of the governor in council, or in any regulation passed pursuant thereto, the expression "Dominion of Canada" is used, there shall be substituted therefor the expression "Canada"; and whenever the expression "dominion" is used there shall be substituted therefor the expression "Canada" or "Canadian" as the case may be.

One of the many reasons for this bill is that since Canada has become a sovereign state the word "dominion" as applied to Canada has entirely lost its original meaning.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.