Mr. J. M. DEOHENE (Athabaska):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I know, sir, that at times you have granted the privilege to some other members on matters similar to that which I wish to bring up, and I am sure that hon. members will bear with me, especially in view of the fact that it is noncontentious.

Tlie matter I wish to bring to the attention of the house, and of the people as well, carries a lesson which I hope we shall all take to heart. Last Saturday, sir, in the city of Calgary, in the province of Alberta, the Edmonton Flyers, representing the great city of Edmonton, won the senior championship in hockey, our national game, with the result that the Allan cup now rests in Edmonton. The lesson I wish to convey is this. Forty years ago, which is a long time in anyone's life, the young and ambitious city of Edmonton challenged for the Stanley cup and went to Montreal to play the Wanderers-and, by the way, they lost only by a goal or two.

The president of the Edmonton club in that year was none other than the genial member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon), who is still with us and has been a member of the cabinet for many years.

Only one more minute of your time do I wish to take up, Mr. Speaker. When we hear so much about things being "fixed," when there is so much suspicion cast around, I think it is well for our young people to learn the lesson of this game in Calgary on Saturday night. Two great teams faced each other when the series stood at three for Edmonton Flyers and one for Ottawa Senators. If Ottawa had won that game it would have meant that the teams would leave for Edmonton, where the largest gate in the history of Edmonton in a hockey game would have been assured, carrying a revenue of some $25,000. I heard the opinion expressed on the street that the Flyers would lose so that they would go back to Edmonton to play. Sir, they did not lose. They won the game in the last few minutes, putting everything they had into it. The club and the

players lost $25,000, but they proved to the people of Canada that integrity, honesty and honour still exist in this country, and that they cannot be bought.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to a question of privilege, but before I state the matter of that privilege I wish to tell you, sir, how glad I am, as I am sure we all are, to see our friend the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), looking hale and hearty.

That being said, what I am about to state as a question of privilege affecting all members of parliament is that since April 12 there has been a curse upon us, upon all of us, that curse having been pronounced by the hon. member for Lake Centre. At page 2860 of Hansard, the hon. member is reported to have said:

Following Magna Carta, because of the inclination on the part of some people to depart from its principles, a curse was placed on all who departed from them.

He read the curse, but before doing so he said:

According to the author I read, no king's minister,-

That is king with a small, not a capital, "k."

-no cabinet minister, no adviser or person who departed from those principles would ever be able to remove himself from the curse that was pronounced, namely, that he would be driven out of power or restrained by the people.

I have a vague idea of what a curse is, but when I look in the dictionary-

Order.

Mr. POULIOT:

*-I see that it is synonymous with "malediction" and "anathema", and means to lay under a curse, to call down a curse from heaven upon someone.

Order.

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Speaker, the matter is serious, and I would ask the hon. gentleman to be more precise. I do not believe there is such a curse, and I want him to tell us who uttered that curse, and what power of attorney he ever had to use it against anybody. That is important at a time when the

House of Commons Debates

Minister of Finance is preparing his budget speech. How can he prepare a good budget speech with a curse on his head?

Mr. MaeINNIS: It would be a poor budget speech anyway.

Mr. POULIOT:

I hope the hon. gentleman will tell us what it is.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to

inform the house that the Clerk has laid on the table the twenty-second report of the examiner of petitions for private bills.

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Speaker, he did not answer. It was a papal curse, and he is not a monsignor to put it on us.

Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved:

That the name of Mr. Jaenieke be substituted for that of Mr. Bentley, and the name of Mr. Knight be substituted for that of Mr. McKay, on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.