Mr. Morris:

With every respect, that is what I am endeavouring to do, to point out that the hon. gentleman asserts that I said things which he is not capable of asserting. This is a quotation from an erroneous newspaper report. What I said was that conditions in Nova Scotia were bad, and I underline "were" but that matters had improved since June, 1957. I intend to repeat the speech later this week.

Mr. Chevrier:

I now rise on a point of order to say to you with deference, sir, that the hon. member has taken this occasion to do something which, in my opinion, he has no right to do under the rules. He could have done it either by taking part in the debate or on some other occasion. As far as I can see there is no privilege involved in the statement made by the hon. member.

Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):

Since my name was brought into this question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Halifax, I wish to place on record the reference from which I took the statement I made last night. It was from the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday-

Inquiries of the Ministry

Mr. Morris:

I rise on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. The hon. member for Gloucester knows the rule. When a member states in his place that certain facts pertaining to him are so, his duty as a member of the house is to accept the word of the hon. member and not to seek to controvert it. I suppose there is no reason why the hon. member should not indicate how he came to make the assertion which has been complained of; but when a statement has been made by an hon. member it then is for the house to accept that statement unless there is a procedure taken to deal with the matter.

Hon. Paul Mariin (Essex East):

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to you with great respect that your statement of the rule is not perhaps fully in accord with what the rule seeks to do. If an hon. member makes a statement to which another hon. member takes exception and raises a question of privilege, it is the duty of all hon. members to accept the statement of the aggrieved member provided the person who makes the initial statement feels that he is not in a position to controvert the grounds on which the statement of the aggrieved member is made.

No, no.

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

The hon. member is not accepting the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax, and he is seeking to establish justification for the statement he has made. After that statement has been made by the hon. member I think it would then be open to Your Honour to take the position you have outlined, but surely the hon. member for Gloucester is perfectly justified in saying that he does not accept the statement made by the hon. member and then give his reasons.

No, no.

Mr. Speaker:

I think the hon. member for Essex East perhaps has a point but it might better be expressed in this way: "I accept the statement of the hon. member but there are these circumstances which seem to justify my comment." I do not think any member has to sit down when he feels that there is something to be said, but in the final analysis if a member makes a statement on his honour from his place in the chamber with regard to a matter which is within the knowledge of the member speaking, that statement must be accepted by the house. Unless some hon. member wishes to set the hon. member for Essex East and myself right, I might hear the hon. member for Gloucester.

Mr. Robichaud:

Mr. Speaker, I was just about to say that I was prepared to accept the statement made by the hon. member for

Halifax. However, as he said that I had no personal knowledge of what was said by him at the meeting, I think I have the right to refer to the article.

No, no.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is going a little far afield. The hon. member for Gloucester has now admitted that he was not present at the meeting and therefore has no personal knowledge of what was said by the hon. member for Halifax. Nevertheless he wishes to read a statement from a newspaper which the hon. member for Halifax has already declared to be erroneous.

Mr. Robichaud:

Maybe he is following your example.

Mr. Churchill:

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is carrying things too far.

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member for Gloucester has said that he accepts the statement of the hon. member for Halifax with respect to what he said, and has indicated that the reason for his making the remarks he did make was a newspaper report. I follow him that far and up to that point I consider it proper comment and quite in order, but I think he should not read the report.

Mr. Arthur Smith (Calgary South):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can give the house any information or make a report on the arrest of a Canadian citizen in Poland, Mr. Tadeusz Koyer.

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The house will recall from statements made by the Prime Minister on November 28 and December 1 last that Mr. Tadeusz Koyer, a Canadian citizen of Polish birth, was arrested last summer while paying a private visit to his family in Poland. The investigation has been going on since that time. According to a brief telegram received today from our embassy in Poland, Mr. Koyer was released on Saturday and will be returned to Canada this week.

When this matter was raised previously in the house, occasion was taken to note that the Polish authorities had been co-operative in allowing our consul in Warsaw to interview Mr. Koyer. At this time, in addition to expressing my pleasure at the recent news, I

should like to note again the correctness of the Polish attitude in the handling of this matter.