Mr. BENNETT:
Just exactly what it
says.
Mr. RALSTON:
What is that?
Mr. BENNETT:
There is no imputation
of any kind.
Mr. ELLIOTT:
Why was it said?
Mr. RALSTON:
I ask my right hon.
friend what he means by "what does it represent on the back of it"?
Mr. BENNETT:
From whom the brief
was received.
Mr. RALSTON:
My right hon. friend as
a leading member of the bar, as a former president of the Canadian Bar Association, as a gentleman who has the keeping of the discipline and the good name of this House of Commons in his hands
Mr. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, a question
of privilege does not involve the opportunity to cross-examine. The hon. member has made his statement and I have made mine.
M:r. RALSTON: Does my right hon.
friend think I am going to let it pass with the slipshod explanation he has made? I say that, my right hon. friend has made an imputation which will be regarded as an imputation by every lawyer in the country, and he knows it.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):
Withdraw.
Mr. RALSTON:
I ask him to withdraw
that imputation.
Mr. BENNETT:
I said that I made no such imputation.
Mr. RALSTON:
Would my right hon. friend permit that statement from any other hon. member of this house and say that he made no imputation?
Mr. BENNETT:
I say that I made no imputation such as the hon. member has suggested.
Mr. HANBURY:
Withdraw it.
92582-233 i
Mr. BENNETT:
I am not withdrawing anything.
Mr. RALSTON:
I ask the Prime Minister to explain what he meant by the words, "what does it represent on the back of it" if it was not an imputation?
Mr. BENNETT:
Just what the words say.
Mr. SPEAKER:
With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), I must say that I was in the house this afternoon when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) made his statement and as a lawyer of some years standing at the bar I must confess frankly that I certainly did not take the imputation from the remarks of the Prime Minister which the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth has. If I had taken any such imputation I certainly would have requested the Prime Minister to withdraw. The Prime Minister has stated that he made no imputation in the matter and naturally I must accept his statement. He has stated emphatically on more than one occasion since the question of privilege has been raised that he made no such imputation and that is the statement I am bound to accept.
Mr. RALSTON:
I do ask if the words mean anything at all. If they do not contain an imputation why were they used? Those words were immediately followed by the words, "That is the question." What do the words mean if they do not mean to impute what I have just suggested? Can your honour as a distinguished lawyer conceive of any other meaning than the imputation to which I have just referred?
Mr. SPEAKER:
I must confess frankly that I do not take the imputation from the words that the hon. member has taken. I am sure he will agree with me that had I taken any such imputation it would have been my duty as Speaker to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw it. But I took no such imputation.