1968-02-22

PRIVILEGE


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Reference to Statement by Prime Minister the truth. It is contrary to the truth because it is contrary to what actually happened at every stage.
As background to what I wish to say in this respect let me read what the Prime Minister said as reported on page 8 of this transcript:
I know what Monday night is like. Nobody thought there was going to he a vote.
I can only put this down, in generous excuse for the Prime Minister, to the fact that he was not here on Monday; he was holidaying in Jamaica.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is a statement of fact. The Prime Minister was not here on Monday; he was holidaying in Jamaica. But he was telephoned in Jamaica at 6 p.m. on Monday, so he tells us, according to the transcript, and was told that everything was quiet; everything was under control. This was the message he received in Jamaica at 6 p.m. according to his own testimony, after the government had narrowly avoided defeat in a vote that afternoon by a majority of 3. Everything was quiet. Everything was under control.
Mr. Speaker, this was no snap vote. This was no trick. Members did not suddenly spring out from behind the curtains. Contrary to the Prime Minister's statement that no vote was expected, this is what occurred. We in the opposition opposed this measure at every stage. We opposed the budget last November, when we voted against it. We voted against the income tax bill on second reading, contrary to the impression left by the Prime Minister in the course of his broadcast. We voted against it in committee on Monday; as I have said, on Monday afternoon the government narrowly avoided defeat in a vote of 65 to 62. On Monday evening it was the government which called for third reading.
There was no surprise. I am outlining here the course of events as they actually happened in order to demonstrate the extent of the untruths contained in the Prime Minister's statement and, therefore, the extent of the slander upon members of this house and the extent of the breach of the privileges of this house.
Contrary to what the Prime Minister said, it was perfectly clear that there would be a vote on third reading. And let me point out that we did not call the third reading, nor was it sprung upon the government by surprise. Indeed, under the normal practice of this house, when second reading has taken

place on a previous day and on another day the house completes committee stage, it is normal to go on at once with third reading. But the matter still rested within the control of the government. They could have deferred third reading if they had wished. But they did not; they called the third reading stage, which we accepted, and the opposition voted on third reading, and that is the way the government came to be defeated on Monday evening last.
The opposition voted knowing full well what was the effect and the implication of their vote, and one must assume that the government accepted the vote also knowing full well what was the implication of the vote. So it is contrary to the truth when the Prime Minister says that no one expected a vote on Monday night. It is contrary to the truth when the Prime Minister says this was a species of trickery. It is contrary to the truth when the Prime Minister says this is a manufactured crisis. At least it is certainly contrary to the truth when he implies it was manufactured by anybody else but the government itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So, sir, this being the situation I submit to you that the only course that can properly be followed now is for this house to take the matter under advisement, and to do so in realization of the fact that the members of the house have been slandered, the proceedings of the house have been called into question by words of the Prime Minister of Canada himself, the first member of this house, reflecting upon its proceedings; and I suggest to the Prime Minister that he be careful of his use of language, because if there is any trickery whatsoever involved here the trickery is in the backhanded, extraordinary and deceitful motion placed on the notice paper yesterday by the right hon. gentleman himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness):
That the words used by the right hon. the Prime Minister on a C.B.C. national television interview broadcast on February 21st, 1968, to wit:
"That's the way elections should be brought about. Not by this kind of trickery situation last Monday night.''
"Are you going to let these people manoeuvre you by this kind of trickery into a general election at this particular time?"
February 22, 19S8	COMMONS DEBATES	6911
and other statements of a like nature, as reported in the official transcript of the said broadcast, constitute a reflection upon the proceedings of this house, a reflection on the conduct and honour of members of this house, and thus constitute a breach of the privileges of said members and of the house itself, and that this house take such action in respect thereof as may be in accord with the practices and conventions established for the protection and safeguarding of the said privileges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will look into this matter and not much time needs to be taken up on the statement-


Mr. Starr:: The motion has not been put.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario submits that I should put the motion. I will put the motion only if I rule that there is a prima facie case of privilege. This is the way the matter is to be considered. Before doing this, I am sure hon. members will agree that it is always in order for a member who is criticized to be given an opportunity to make an explanation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that you would no doubt want to take under advisement this matter proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) at a session which his party has been arguing does not exist, when we have no right to bring any business before this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: No government business.


Lester Bowles Pearson: However, he managed to make a little speech before the House of Commons, not on the matter of constitutional reform which was put forward as a desirable subject but with regard to a broadcast made outside the house in which I said the following, which I will quote exactly. The hon. member left out the first part of this paragraph, which appears at page 14 of the transcript. It reads as follows:
I am getting a lot of messages saying: "Are you going to let these people manoeuvre you by this kind of trickery-?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When these people have been telling me we should not be manoeuvred by this kind of trickery they may have been
Reference to Statement by Prime Minister thinking about a statement made by a Conservative member of parliament, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), who was quoted by the Ottawa Journal, an unimpeachable source, as having said-this was copied from the Mail Star of Halifax-that "It was an organized plot by the Conservative opposition that resulted in the government's defeat".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, Mr. Speaker, it is up to you to decide whether the word "trickery" constitutes a breach of privilege of the house or not, even though I quoted it from another message. While you are deciding that I would call your attention to page 6901 of Hansard for February 20 when there was a motion to adjourn the house. After the motion had been called the following appears:


Mr. Ricard:: It Is a rotten Grit trick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has involved me directly in this matter, and since I have before me the Ottawa Journal, I should like to say first of all that I did not see this article in the Mail Star of Halifax but I read a similar article in the Chronicle-Herald of Halifax which did not quote me as saying there was an organized plot. That was the opinion of the correspondent who wrote the article.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was an accident.


Robert Carman Coates: If hon. gentlemen do not mind, what I should like to do is state my personal privilege. At the same time, if the article in the Halifax Mail Star does in fact quote me as saying there was an organized plot, then I must say that the article is incorrect. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that I should be given the opportunity to explain the circumstances relating to this allegation.
The circumstances are these. On Monday afternoon it was very apparent to the Conservative party, if not to the Liberal party, that the government could be defeated. The government in fact, had survived a vote on clause 5 in committee. While the clause was not defeated, it passed by only 65 to 62.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Carman Coates: I think it is only fair to allow me to continue because the Prime Minister
6912	COMMONS
Reference to Statement by Prime Minister has accused me personally of plotting. He referred to something which I am sure he has not read himself, personally, because I have not seen the article. However, quite gratuitously he is willing to accuse me of plotting, or the Conservative party of plotting, so I think I should have the right to explain the circumstances.
In the evening third reading was called by the Minister of Finance. At the time Mr. Deputy Speaker, acting on Your Honour's behalf, called for the yeas and nays and stated "The nays have it". As a result the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) immediately rose with his colleagues and asked for a vote. When that took place the Conservative party, not in association with any other political party in this house but by itself, organized to get every member who was in Ottawa in this house to vote. The result of that vote was a defeat of the government, something that my leader and every member of this party has been dedicated to do ever since this financial measure was brought down; and we did it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought it was in order to allow the hon. member some words of explanation in view of the fact that he had been brought personally into the discussion. As hon. members know, the duty of the Chair at this stage is to decide whether a prima facie case of privilege has been made out. I have no intention of stifling debate, however. If hon. members have something to contribute to convince me there is a prima facie case of privilege or there is not, I will listen, but I insist that any contribution be directly relevant to that particular point.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to point out to you and to the house that there is a prima facie case of privilege. I listened to television last night between 9.30 and ten o'clock and again at 11. I heard the Prime Minister talking to two members of the press gallery. I wrote down what he said, and if this is not correct the Prime Minister can make the necessary correction. I heard him say these words, and he was talking about bringing on an election: "Not by this kind of trickery situation on Monday night".
Now, sir, the burden of what he had to say in the press conference was that on Monday night when the vote was held on third reading of Bill No. C-193, some trickery took place. I was very careful to jot down these words. I said to myself, what did the Prime Minister mean by trickery on Monday night?

DEBATES	February 22, 1968
This, sir, is a reflection on every member who was in the house on Monday night. There was no trickery. There was no deceit. The members who were here on Monday night were doing their duty to their country by being here.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
We had participated in the debate in the afternoon and were prepared to continue after the supper hour, to complete the bill and go on with third reading, as is normal under the circumstances. There was not any deceitful action on the part of any member of the house to my knowledge; we were doing our duty. We were not staying away from the house. We were not holidaying.
If there was trickery, sir, it must have been on the part of those members of the Liberal party who were not here to cast their votes and support the government. Possibly that is where the trickery was. Perhaps that is what the Prime Minister was referring to. However, his remarks to the country indicated to the people of Canada that by some trick or some deceit the House of Commons had defeated a government motion. I, sir, as a member of this house find fault with that action and that statement of the Prime Minister. It is a reflection on each member who was here that night, and I will not stand for that type of reflection on my conduct as a member of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This statement was a reflection on the House of Commons as an institution, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister of this country, who is responsible for the conduct of the House of Commons, speaks to the nation and says there is trickery afoot in the House of Commons, that the government cannot get the business through because the House of Commons is deceitful and is using trickery to defeat their purpose. That is the impression the Prime Minister left with the people of this country, and that makes this a valid point of privilege.
As the hon. member for Kamloops has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, in casting a reflection on individual members and on the house as a whole the Prime Minister is also casting a reflection on the Speakership of this house. It so happened, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Deputy Speaker was in the chair on that occasion. If you will refer to page 6894 and the following pages of Hansard you will find that Mr. Deputy Speaker carried out the instructions of the house. He abided by the rules of the
February 22, 1968	COMMONS
house and put the motion in the proper order; and when the vote was called it was properly conducted.
If there was trickery involved, sir, the Minister of Finance, I would point out, stated that he wanted to proceed with third reading.


Mr. Sharp:: No; read the whole paragraph.


Gordon Minto Churchill: All right. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will explain his position. Let me show the house that there was no trickery.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Read Hansard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I intend to read it. I refer to page 6895, the bottom of the first column. There we read:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand that the Minister of Finance does not want the bill to be read a third time now?
To which the Minister of Finance replied:
No, no.
Then an hon. member interjected:
At the next sitting of the house.
The minister's answer to both these comments was:
No. no.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the minister was saying he wanted to go ahead with it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I was objecting to third reading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then as reported in the second column of the page, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said this:
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to third reading. I did not move the motion, and I am very sorry if Your Honour misunderstood. X was trying to catch your eye. If it is the wish of the house,
I am perfectly happy to have third reading.
The Prime Minister tells the country that there was trickery in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. He is accusing the Minister of Finance of using trickery.
Then, Mr. Speaker, to show the attitude of the government on that night let me recall this to your mind. When the yeas and nays were called Mr. Deputy Speaker correctly interpreted the will of the house and stated that the nays had it. And who then called for a recorded vote, Mr. Speaker? None other than the Minister of Transport, who jumped to his feet, flapped his arms wildly like this, and encouraged his reluctant members to stand up and have a recorded vote.
DEBATES	6913
Reference to Statement by Prime Minister
I conclude, sir, by saying there was no deceit, no trickery, unless it was on the part of the government. Certainly there was no trickery on the part of individual members or any of the parties on this side of the house. I say, sir, this is a valid question of privilege for this house to decide.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must caution hon. members to limit their remarks as much as possible to the very limited question whether there was a prima facie breach of privilege in the words alleged to have been used.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I will confine my remarks to the question whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I am sure we are all familiar with the rule that no member in an ordinary speech may reflect upon a decision taken by the house, whether in the ordinary course of proceedings or by a recorded vote. When on occasion we have had to refer back to decisions taken by the house, as the government do frequently in connection with the decision taken on medicare, in support of their contention that it must proceed, the excuse is given that it is the will of parliament. They say parliament has voted on the matter; therefore we must proceed because parliament has expressed itself. That is the only type of comment allowed on previous actions of this house. There is no need, Mr. Speaker, to look for specific authority for this. Nearly every day Mr. Speaker listens to hon. members who are dissatisfied with a decision of the house, whose remarks indicate they are not happy either with the decision itself or the manner in which it was taken, and the Chair is always quick to point out that this might be a reflection on a decision or action of the house and hon. members are quickly brought to order.
One of the things on which we pride ourselves as members of this house and as hon. gentlemen is the sincerity of our motives. There can be no suggestion that any member of this house acts otherwise than as his duty as a member of the house impels him to act in considering the matters before him. He acts as his duty to his country and his constituents dictates.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the Prime Minister, which certainly have not been explained away by the facetious manner in which he answered the hon. member for Kamloops this day, must be looked at in the
February 22, 1968
6914	COMMONS
Reference to Statement by Prime Minister sum total of our duty to this house, the duty of each member, no matter his station, to uphold the principle that enables each member of the house to refer with surety to each other member as an honourable gentleman. I refer to the remarks on page 12 of the transcript, for instance:
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
And then we came up against this income tax bill on a Monday night by, according to this Conservative member, a plot engineered.
I refer also to the remarks on page 14:
"Are you going to let these people manoeuvre you by this kind of trickery into a general election at this particular time?-
Also the remarks on page 22:
That's the way elections should be brought about. Not by this kind of trickery situation last Monday night.
These are three quotations from the Prime Minister's speech, and each one seeks to indicate that there was something improper about the proceedings in this house last Monday. The proceedings of this house are recorded in Hansard and Votes and Proceedings, and the situation that was developing all day is plainly to be read. That day's procedure was exactly the same as the procedure that has been carried on in this house for many, many years by many governments, and that is the way in which bills have been voted on, sustained or defeated.
Unquestionably, in the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for example, the duty of the opposition is to criticize. Those who now sit opposite me have been heard to say in the past that it is the business of the opposition to defeat the government.


An hon. Member:: At all costs.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Surely anyone in this country who considers the impudence of this government will think it the duty of the opposition to get rid of this government. Since the allegation has been made that trickery was involved in the long accepted, standard and honourable procedure of this house, a procedure which clearly says that the duty of the opposition is to oppose, criticize and, if possible, get rid of an incompetent government -there need be little argument to show that the allegation touches on the privileges of members of the house.
If a course of conduct which we deem to be in the best interests of our party and this


country is undertaken, and if we who honour-bly pursue our duty in this house are to be smeared with the label of "trickery", then surely the rule having to do with reflections being cast on hon. members of the house ought to be invoked. I ask Your Honour to allow us to debate the matter, to determine the extent of the insult that hon. members have sustained because of those uncalled for words on the part of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if much is to be served by having repetitions of the argument which was so well put originally by the hon. member for Kamloops. On the other hand, I do not want any suggestion that hon. members have not had an opportunity to support the point of view that there has been a breach of privilege. I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfleld (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I do not think much needs to be said on the point. Unquestionably the Prime Minister of this country suggested to the public at large that trickery was involved in Monday night's vote. It has been clearly demonstrated in this house that there was no such trickery. The only way the Prime Minister has supported his position is by quoting from a newspaper which attributed some remarks to one member or several members of the house. The Prime Minister was not quoting any hon. member, in fact, he was quoting something that had been decided by a newspaperman.
The Prime Minister has not seriously attempted to deny that he made the offending remark. He has not seriously attempted to justify himself for what he said. To have made the remark on the spur of the moment, as he said my hon. colleague had done, is one thing. But this was a deliberate statement. It was repeated on a number of occasions, and it reflected on the members of this house in a completely unjustified manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Clearly the remarks cast a reflection on this house and constitute a breach of privilege. I may say that I was very sorry to hear my right hon. friend make those remarks.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house for any great length since you have heard many expressions of opinion about this
February 22, 1968

motion. I am prepared to leave the determination as to breach of privilege to Your Honour. I rise to read some brief remarks from the transcript of the Prime Minister's interview on television. On page 2 of that transcript the Prime Minister is reported to have said, in part:
-which is probably one of the reasons why this crisis has been manufactured by the opposition.
On page 3 he is reported to have said:
There's a crisis being manufactured-
On page 5 he is alleged to have said:
-when the opposition will organize a plot on the third reading of a vote of this kind to defeat a government,-
Finally I shall read the remarks from page 22 which have already been drawn to Your Honour's attention. The Prime Minister is alleged to have said:
That's the way elections should be brought about. Not by this kind of trickery situation last Monday night.
I do not think I need to advise Your Honour whether this is a matter of privilege. But, because I want to make it abundantly clear, on behalf of the members of this party, that we consider these statements to be inaccurate and contrary to the facts-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and to be a complete distortion of what took place in this house last Monday, I have risen to make my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Whether inaccurate statements giving a misleading impression of what happened in the house constitute a question of privilege, I am prepared to leave to Your Honour. I wish to say that whatever Your Honour's decision may be, these inaccurate statements will be answered when we have the opportunity to debate the motion of confidence tomorrow; because, since we were merely carrying out the duties of members in this house, we do not propose to have improper motives attributed to us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We were trying to oppose with all the powers at our command a piece of legislation which in my opinion was abominable and not in the best interests of the people of Canada. We have a right to oppose such legislation. This was not something that happened just last Monday; we have opposed 27053-436
DEBATES	6915
Rejerence to Statement by Prime Minister this legislation ever since the Minister of Finance announced it in his mini-budget before Christmas. Almost alone last Thursday the members of this party fought this bill in committee. We fought it all last Monday afternoon. The government measure survived a vote in committee by a bare margin of 3 votes.


An hon. Member:: After a filibuster.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The government had ample notice that members of this party and of other opposition parties, as a result of the committee vote of 65 to 62 which carried the government measure, had taken strong exception to this measure. The government had ample opportunity to delay the debate on third reading until the next day, to continue the debate on third reading until the next day, or to see that it had sufficient members here to express its point of view in the vote.
I am rising solely to say that we consider the Prime Minister's statements to be unfortunate. They may have been made by the Prime Minister in a moment of hysteria or excitement.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hysteria is all over there.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But the statements are inaccurate. We propose, Mr. Speaker, if you allow a debate, to discuss this matter at this time. If not, we certainly intend to debate it at the earliest opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Heal Caouelie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words about the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and accusing the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of having used rather strong words regarding the opposition, by suggesting, for instance, that there was some collusion and agreement among the various opposition parties to defeat the government.
There was no agreement or collusion among opposition parties. The only thing that happened Monday evening was that the motion introduced by the government with regard to Bill No. C-193 was defeated. That is what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: It is the privilege of the right hon. Prime Minister to say on television that
February 22, 1968
6916	COMMONS
Reference to Statement by Prime Minister the Conservatives or the opposition are not assuming their responsibilities as they should, just as it is our privilege to reply to the Prime Minister, either on television or here in the house and I feel that he has obtained a good number of replies this afternoon.
But to conclude, Mr. Speaker, that there is really a question of privilege is an entirely different matter. I feel that the people on both sides should be free to say what they think, and that goes even for the Prime Minister of Canada.
The right hon. Prime Minister wanted to justify his stand, and he argued his case. The Conservatives argue theirs by saying that had the Liberals been here Monday night this situation would not have occurred. Indeed, approximately 45 Liberals were absent, but let us not forget that 42 Conservatives, 7 members of the New Democratic party, 3 members of the Ralliement Creditiste, 2 members of the Social Credit party and two thirds of the Independents were also absent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Nevertheless, we must be frank, we must set the facts straight.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this question of privilege could be discussed tomorrow during the debate on the motion of the right hon. Prime Minister. We will then have complete freedom to debate this question and to blame the Prime Minister for the things he said on television. However, I do not think it is in order to discuss this afternoon the speech made by the Prime Minister on television, nor any comments made by any member today or in the past few days.
I think we will have plenty of time to discuss this matter at length tomorrow, to say everything we want and to tell the government exactly what we think.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion moved by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). The only defence the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made this afternoon, if it is any defence at all, was that he said he quoted certain words in the television interview. This is going to be my first point. He may feel that is some defence to the charge of slander in the sense that the word "slander" has been used by the hon. member for Kamloops, but I suggest to him that it is no


defence. Let us look at what the Prime Minister said. He said:
I am getting a lot of messages saying: "Are you going to let these people manoeuvre you by this kind of trickery into a general election at this particular time?"
In defence the Prime Minister says he was merely quoting somebody. I say he has left the wrong impression this afternoon, as he has done on many other occasions not only in this house but on television and radio, because if we turn to page 22 of the transcript we will find there are no quotation marks around these words which I am going to quote. They are clear, they are concise, and they are the words of the Prime Minister himself. But before quoting them I wish to say that the reason the Prime Minister adopted this defence was to introduce an element of comedy in reference to the serious motion moved by the hon. member for Kamloops. He thought he could say, "Oh, well, I just quoted somebody." But the words to which I will draw attention are his own words. They in themselves, so far as I am concerned as a member of the house, and indeed I am sure many hon. members will agree with me, constitute a matter of privilege involving every hon. member.
The Prime Minister used the word "trickery". The word "trickery" means some kind of fraud or dishonesty. As I say, these are the Prime Minister's own words. They are not in quotation marks. These are the words that went forth to probably a million people watching him on television. His defence today is not very sound and he knows it. In fact in my opinion, with the greatest respect to the Prime Minister and his position, he is trying to mislead the house today as he tried to misrepresent the situation on television. These are his own words to which I refer. He said:
Not by this kind of trickery situation last Monday night.
I repeat that those are the Prime Minister's own words, not a quotation. In his defence today, and I think it was because he thought no one would read all the 22 pages of the transcript, the Prime Minister picked out a passage on page 14. However, the hon. member for Kamloops dealt adequately with both phrases complained of, and so did the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill).
The only defence which the Prime Minister had today was that he was quoting somebody. We do not know whether he was quoting
February 22, 19G8
COMMONS DEBATES	6917
somebody. He is using this method to get across something he knows in his own heart and every member of the Liberal party knows was untrue. There was no trickery. They did not have enough members in the house to uphold the government. That is why he was defeated. Why doesn't he tell the truth? I repeat that these are the words of the Prime Minister. They are not in quotes. That point must be made because his defence today is a false defence.
Not by this kind of trickery situation last Monday night.
Those are his own words. So I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, that the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops is completely in order because the Prime Minister did malign and slander everyone in this house over television by leaving the impression that this good government -that is what he thinks it is but we think it is the opposite-was tricked into defeat on that occasion. I might end with this phrase. This is a new rule. It is a rule by King Pearson I. He won't quit until he is fired.


Miss LaMarsh:: That sounds more like Dief the Last.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to become particularly involved in the debate taking place at the moment. I simply want to state very clearly, with regard to the suggestion of trickery in connection with the vote on Monday night, that the members of this group voted according to the dictates of their consciences and without any reference whatsoever to any other member or any other party in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I want to add another word to clear up what I think is a misunderstanding. There was just one member of this party who was absent the other evening when the vote was taken. Although I did not have the translation system turned on I understand that someone said there were two of our members absent. Mr. Speaker, we realize it is your responsibility to decide this issue and we leave it in your hands.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the main conclusion I have drawn from this debate so far is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made a mighty effective television performance last night.
27053-436J
Reference to Statement by Prime Minister o (3:30 p.m.)
The hon. member for Kamloops complains of two allegations or statements contained within the Prime Minister's telecast. He refers to the expression "a trickery situation" and the expression "a manufactured crisis". Surely hon. members are becoming extremely thin-skinned when they rise on a question of privilege in objection to these two expressions. Those of us who have been in this house for any length of time know that these are relatively mild expressions-


An hon. Member:: Not when principles are involved.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -especially those of us who have listened to and enjoyed the thunderbolts delivered at times in abusive and torrential language by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I notice, Mr. Speaker, that he had the good judgment not to line up on this rather ridiculous and manufactured question of privilege.
The other day when I moved the motion to adjourn the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) said, "It is a rotten Grit trick".


Mr. MacEwan:: It was.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to refer in general terms-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: It was.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rest
my case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Surely it is open to members of the public to say that the House of Commons is incompetent, that it lacks judgment and that it does not do its job efficiently. Surely this is a comment that any member of the public could make. Are our privileges thereby violated? Are we not ready to receive criticism? Surely hon. members opposite are not today saying that our personal privileges, our integrity and our station as members of parliament are in any way violated by the expressions "a trickery situation" or "manufactured crisis". Surely they have no more entitlement to that position than we on this side would have if we were to say that we have been maligned or slandered by two hon. members of the opposition who just the other day and now today have said that we have been guilty when moving a normal procedural motion of a dirty-I am sorry, I should
6918	COMMONS
Reference to Statement by Prime Minister say "rotten"-trick. That is the accepted word. Surely that is not a sufficient reason to say that we have been guilty of a rotten Grit trick.
Let us not get upset over this incident. I should like to repeat the words of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert-perhaps he borrowed them from another great political figure-"If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".
I say that it was a trickery situation. The hon. member for Kamloops said it was not a trickery situation. I say it was a manufactured crisis. The hon. member for Kamloops said it was not a manufactured crisis. When I say that it is a trickery situation and that it is a manufactured crisis the leader of the New Democratic party is entitled to say that I am inaccurate. He is entitled to say that what I have said is contrary to the facts. He is entitled to say I have distorted the situation. Of course he is entitled to say that. That is debate; that is what the House of Commons is for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Every time an hon. gentleman on this side says something and another hon. gentleman on that side disagrees violently and passionately, is there then a question of privilege? Of course not. Beau-chesne makes the point very clearly. He states that a dispute arising between two hon. members as to allegations of fact hardly fulfils the condition of a privileged question.


An hon. Member:: That is in this house.


Mr. Lambert:: Do you mean to say that television is this house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this interjection by the hon. member for Edmonton West does not change the situation in any respect. It is not a matter of privilege. It is a question of debate between hon. members. We say it was a trickery situation and you say it was not. We say it was a manufactured crisis and you say it was not. Is that a question of privilege? That is debate, and let us get on with the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat made reference to a most effective speech. It may well have been, but I should like to say that it was not the kind of speech we on this side would make. On this

DEBATES	February 22, 1968
side we have the handicap of saying only what the facts are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), with a skirl of the bagpipes, has attempted to lead us into a detour. This is not a question of a conflict between two members of this house. As Your Honour indicated in the few comments you made, this is a question concerning what is the pith and substance of a statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on a television broadcast which has been referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I should like to repeat the definition of the word "trickery" which the hon. member for Kamloops has read into the record. It is:
The practice of tricks; deceitful conduct or practice; deception, artifice; imposture.
Your Honour said something about the words recited by the hon. member for Kamloops. I suggest that Your Honour must go beyond these words and examine the entire transcript. I think this is essential. Your Honour, as I was, was brought up in an honourable profession. I am sure you will agree that libel is the clear and simple issue here. I should like to quote from citation 108(3) of Beauchesne, fourth edition:
Libels on members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity-
I suggest to Your Honour that the simple issue is whether an examination of the entire transcript would indicate that any person listening to the speech would think that members of this house when engaged in their duty on Monday night indulged in disreputable conduct. I believe this is the simple issue. There is an innuendo. I do not think it is sufficient for Your Honour simply to consider the words to which the hon. member for Kamloops referred. He referred to two like statements which were made during the broadcast.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I suggest that any reasonable examination of the entire transcript would bring us to but one conclusion. It would indicate to any person examining or reading the transcript, or who listened to the remarks, that the members of this House of Commons who were here in this house on Monday night engaged in deceitful tricks or in conduct in which they
February 22, 1968	COMMONS
ought not to engage in their capacity as members of this honourable house. This is the charge which has been made. No other reasonable conclusion can be drawn. I therefore submit that this constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for the advice they have given the Chair. I might say that after listening to all the arguments I am perhaps a little more confused than I was at the beginning, and I was confused then.
I shall not deal with all the arguments which have been advanced by hon. members who have taken part in the debate. I think I, should point out that I have allowed more latitude than usual on such occasions when normally, I think, the Speaker should rise as early as possible after the motion has been raised to rule whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege. However, I felt this to be a matter of such importance that there ought to be no suggestion that all hon. members who wished to give advice to the Chair or explain their positions had not been given an opportunity to do so. Having taken this position, I think that to a large extent we have already had a debate such as we might expect to take place were the motion itself allowed and perhaps a debate such as would have taken place were the hon. member's motion, of which notice has been given to the house, proceeded with later in this current session.
What we have before us in the motion of which the hon. member for Kamloops has given notice is a suggestion that the use of certain specified words and expressions by an hon. member, in this case the Prime Minister, is in breach of the privileges of the house. I think I have to say, in spite of what the hon. member for Peace River and others have said as to the need to look at the complete record, that I am not in complete agreement with them. Certainly there is a specific motion before the house which claims that certain particular words are objectionable. These are the words which I think should be examined by the Chair and upon which a determination should be made.
The claim made by the hon. member for Kamloops is that there is a breach of privilege in the use of the word "trickery" as contained in the statement:
That's the way elections should be brought about. Not by this kind of trickery situation last Monday night.
DEBATES	6919
Reference to Statement by Prime Minister
Are you going to let these people manoeuvre you by this kind of trickery into a general election at this particular time?
Those are the words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I direct Your Honour's attention to the fact that the motion goes on to say "and other expressions contained in the transcript".


Mr. Speaker:: The expressions which have been referred to include the expressions "trickery" and "manufactured crisis". I would doubt that the hon. member could reasonably claim that the use of the words "manufactured crisis" is in itself libelous or slanderous, which I should think is what we should have to find here.
Hon. members might refer to citation 113 of Beauchesne, fourth edition, which reads:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament-
Then later-and this is what I wanted to read in particular:
Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to parliament and interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of members.
So whether the statement made by the Prime Minister is true is not at issue at all. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made this point. He said: Well, we claim there was no manufactured crisis and there was no trickery and we intend to prove this in the course of debate. That is quite right, and that, I suggest, is the position which should be taken by anyone who claims or feels that the statement made by the Prime Minister is inaccurate or untrue. The fact that a statement is untrue does not necessarily form the basis of a question of privilege. The only way in which there could be a breach of privilege would be for the word "trickery" itself to be considered as slanderous. My suggestion is that having regard to the manner in which the word was used on this occasion in a general way in the course of a general statement, it cannot be considered by any hon. members as a personal offence against their integrity as members of parliament.

February 22, 1968
Business of the House In view of all this and in view of the circumstances and the authority to which I have referred, I cannot agree that there is a prima facie case of privilege here.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I
intend to be very unprovocative. Because of the views expressed in the house yesterday as to the proposed debate on the constitutional conference, and in the light of further communications received today, I move:
That this house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 3.48 p.m.

Friday, February 23, 1968