privilege. I hold in my hand a oo-py of the Ottawa Citizen for this morning, December 11, on the front page of which appears an article written by Torchy Anderson, Citizen parliamentary writer. This article is headed "Leader S. Low Seems Facing Party 'Revolt' ", and goes on to say:
Following last night's abortive effort to advance legislation by which Canada would participate in Bretton Woods financial undertakings, corridor rumour had it that Solon Low, Social Credit Leader, faced something of * revolt within the ranks of his party. It was said that as late as yesterday afternoon Mr. Low had assured other leaders that the first stage of the debate could be finished.
My point of privilege is this: In the first place, Solon Low does not face any threat of party revolt. I endorse completely the action that was taken by hon. members who were speaking, asking questions and tiying to get information here until eleven o'clock last night. I repeat that I endorse that completely.
Secondly, I did not at any time give any undertaking to anybody that the debate could be finished. I have repeatedly assured the leaders of other groups that I would do my best to see that the business of the house was advanced-and I am doing my best. But at the same time I am trying to do my best for the people of this country. And I want it definitely known that the writer of this article is -trying has level best to read something into the actions of this group that he has no right to read into them.
Furthermore, when anybody in any article of this kind tries to impress upon the public that the Social Credit group is engaged in a filibuster for the assured purpose of blocking the business of this house, that is not true. I wish it definitely known that thus far this group has questioned only six out of the twenty-six articles in the Bretton Woods agreement, and there are hundreds of questions remaining that could be asked with respect to it.