Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to refer to a matter which affects the rights and privileges of all members of this house. A telegram which just reached me this morning advises me of a news dispatch as appearing in the Vancouver Sun. It reads in part as follows:

The following dispatch appeared In the Vancouver Sun appearing Ottawa date 13 begins:

Dr. E. Christie, federal veterinarian told the parliamentary foot-and-mouth disease investigators today that most people in Saskatchewan feel the investigators are wasting a lot of time. The only dissatisfaction appears to have come from politicians in Ottawa, Dr. Christie states. Ends.

In view of the grave anxiety felt throughout all of Canada at this terrible scourge it is disgraceful that any official should make such a statement and the seriousness of the matter should be squarely put before the minister of that department and a public withdrawal instantly made.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the agriculture committee but I have checked and I find that such a statement was made there. There are two respects in which the privileges of this house have been affronted in connection with this statement. The first is that it is suggested that a group of members of this house investigating one of the most serious situations ever to confront the agricultural industry of Canada and seeking to arrive at the facts surrounding the outbreak of that disease should have been accused of wasting time.

The second way in which the privileges of this house and of the members of parliament are involved is that this statement, outrageous wherever it might come from, comes from a civil servant, an official of the department under investigation in that committee.

In view of the seriousness with which this matter is viewed by the agricultural industry throughout Canada and the necessity of the fullest possible investigation by this house, I feel that that statement should be withdrawn, that the minister himself should require from the official who made it a withdrawal, and should further make it perfectly clear that the statement made does not reflect the official attitude of the government or of

the minister. Unless the minister takes that course, the only conclusion we can come to1 is that the minister himself and, through him, the government condone this affront to the position of parliament and to the urgency of the inquiry.

Mr. Pouliot:

Did you remove the mote from your eye?

Mr. Fulion:

That is another of your empty-headed statements.

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. friend did not give me any intimation that he was going to raise this question, as is the usual custom.

Oh, oh.

Mr. Gardiner:

But first on the matter of privilege, as the minister of the department I should like to suggest to him that there is not any reason for repeating what has been said quite often by members of the opposition, namely that the Department of Agriculture is under investigation. That is not the fact. As a matter of fact, we have had certain correspondence placed before the house and before the committee, we have had that correspondence referred to the committee on agriculture, and there has been some discussion on the question. In so far as Dr. Christie is concerned, he is to all intents and purposes no longer a civil servant. He was given superannuation leave as of the 1st day of April, so that he is now giving service-

Oh, oh.

Mr. Gardiner:

-he is now giving service to the people of the Dominion of Canada that is no longer required of him by employment.

Mr. Rowe:

Giving it free?

Mr. Gardiner:

Yes, to all intents and purposes free. He is on the period of release that all civil servants have, as of the 1st day of April, and is drawing pay up to a certain date; but he is not required under any engagement to the people of this country to be there at all. He has been serving since the 1st day of April, and even before that, simply because of his long service in the department. Dr. Christie began his service in 1910, and has been constantly with the department from 1910 to the present. He is leaving on superannuation, or is already

Foot-and-Mouth Disease entitled to leave on superannuation, but is simply staying there helping with this job because of his long experience in it.

Now, someone asked him a question in the committee and he answered. It was not a *government representative who asked it. He .answered that question as to what he himself .believed was the attitude of the people in Saskatchewan, and the opinion that he [DOT]expressed was his own. I have not any reason for saying it was wrong. Judging [from what I know, I think it was very correct.

I do not know just what I would punish him for, if I had any way of punishing him, since he is no longer really a civil servant but doing this job for us in the manner in which he is. I do not know that there is any action which I can take in the matter. I thought the committee itself was satisfied yesterday that they had heard the best evidence from Dr. Christie that they have heard from anyone who has appeared before them. He did not come as a result of our suggestion that he should be there; it was suggested by the opposition members of the committee that Dr. Christie ought to be called.

I knew he was on superannuation leave now, and was not insistent on his doing anything in any particular, but Dr. Christie came on call and he gave his evidence, and I do not think it comes in very good form from those who insisted on his being there now to be exhibiting so much opposition to the man whom they wanted to hear, simply because he did not say what they thought he was going to say or what they thought he ought to say. He told his story, and told it in a straightforward way; he answered all questions asked him, and as a matter of fact I think everyone was pretty well satisfied then with the answer that my hon. friend has referred to.

Mr. Fulton:

The Minister of Agriculture has indicated that-

Order.

Mr. Fulton:

I am pursuing the question of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

I cannot allow a debate on this question of privilege. The hon. member for Kamloops rose and said that he wished to put forward a question of privilege, and he stated his question of privilege. He asked that the minister give a reply. That reply has been given by the minister. The minister answered the points which could be replied to in the House of Commons. It seems to me that with respect to a matter arising from a statement which has been made by a witness in a standing committee, the proper procedure is to discuss

the matter in that committee. The hon. member has said that he is not a member of that committee; but, as he knows, he has the right to be heard there if he makes the request, and I am sure the chairman will advise him of the meeting to attend when it is called, and he can discuss fully the matter of privilege there.

Mr. Cruickshank:

I rise on a question of privilege.

Mr. Fulton:

On a point of order with reference to this matter of privilege, may I direct your attention to citation 198 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, which reads;

Scandalous charges or imputations directed against members of a select committee are equivalent to libellous charges brought against the house itself.

It is under that citation that I am raising this matter, and in my view the question of privilege put forward is still before the house and has not been dealt with in any way. Indeed, it has been aggravated by the answer of the minister, because he stated that he supported the stand of Dr. Christie.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I listened very carefully to the point of privilege as stated by the hon. member, and as I was listening to him I was examining as to whether or not it was a matter which could be raised here. In accordance with this citation he did make his point so that a reply in this house was forthcoming from the minister responsible for the department, the Department of Agriculture, in this instance. The minister has replied. What the hon. member has asked for is a reprimand to be addressed by the minister to the civil servant, and secondly for the minister to disagree, or declare it was not the policy of his department that was stated in the reply given to the committee by the witness referred to.

The minister has replied to these two points; therefore the hon. member should be satisfied with the reply given. He may not like the reply given by the minister; he may not agree with it; but I think the matter has been disposed of.