As yet I do not know what the question of privilege is. After all, a question of privilege is a matter of some concern to all hon. members. So far as my rulings are concerned may I say that they will tend to allow the very widest possible explanation from any member rising to a question of privilege. However there must first be a question of privilege. The hon. member made certain statements in the chamber a few days ago; she must have had good reasons for doing so, and I believe she placed those reasons on Hansard. If she wishes to make any correction in her previous speech or in the remarks made yesterday by the Minister of Justice but in her absence, she is privileged so to do. Otherwise I suggest she should not deal with the matter in a general way.
I do not intend to deal with it in a general way; but if a member of the civil service can go to a penal institution in this country and make statements regarding me which I am attempting to place on Hansard, and which as the minister explained yesterday, on the word of honour of Inspector Dawson were never made, then surely on a question of privilege I have a right to read into Hansard an affidavit by one who says these statements were made. Have I that right?
member is coming to, then I have no objection. I must say however that in her observations up to this time there was no indication of that. Further, it will be understood that the rule is being relaxed somewhat if we accept statements made by people outside the
house in regard to a matter of this kind. With all due deference to the hon. member for Southeast Grey may I say the matter is one which might very well be discussed on the vote for penitentiaries appearing in the estimates, or on some allied item. I believe the discussion would more properly come under that heading. However that is only a suggestion, and if the hon. member thinks she is still personally involved, and that either her character, her action in the house or what she has placed on record has come into question, I think any further explanation she might desire to make would be permissible.
attempting to do when Mr. Speaker prevented me. I do not want any special privileges in this chamber, nor do I ask for any special advantage so far as the interpretation of the rules regarding abuse are concerned. I simply want equality with other hon. members. On my visit to Kingston penitentiary on February 16, 1935 I, in the presence of WTarden Allen saw convict 3242 at the request of his brother, who is a high official in one of the British colonies. His name is prefaced by the appellation of "Honourable" and the initials C-B.E.- or some such initials, are affixed. At his request I asked Warden Allen to allow me to talk in the presence of Warden Allen with convict 3242, -whose case was so exhaustively discussed on the floor of the house last year.
she was going to read some statutory declaration. Again I respectfully submit she should not go into all these details with regard to conversations with one convict or another, or with some other party outside this chamber. If the affidavit bears upon the statement she made the other day I shall rule that it is quite in order.
Very well; I shall leave further discussion until the estimates are considered and at the present time put on Hansard the affidavit to which I have referred, which was made to-day. This affidavit is made by ex-convict 3033. I must say the matter is not by any means dropped, and I am at a loss to understand what a question of privilege is.