Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. On Saturday, December 5, the Toronto Globe and Mail referred to me as follows in its leading editorial:
The Liberals prefer the gag and the blindfold. Some of them, particularly those from western ridings, must have agreed with the Social Credit motion; for example, Mr. Elmore Philpott, Liberal member for Vancouver South, who has long demanded that Canada accept sterling . . . They stayed in line. Such docility damages parliament. It weakens public interest in, and respect for, parliament. It will do the greatest harm, in the long run, to the Liberal party itself.
In the above quotation, Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail was chiding western Liberals in general and myself in particular for not having voted for a Social Credit subamendment. But in its very next issue, on Monday, December 7, the Globe and Mail said:
The acceptance of sterling funds in payment for United Kingdom . . . imports from Canada ... is a question of vital importance ... It is unfortunate that opposition amendments were so ineptly phrased and argued that the government was given complete justification for sidetracking the whole issue for the time being. The Social Credit subamendment would have committed Canada to bearing the entire burden of sterling convertibility; it asked nothing less than that this country should accept sterling from any buyer abroad who tendered it as payment for any purchases from us . . . Economic ignorance and a deficient understanding of the functions of an opposition combined to produce this masterpiece of parliamentary incompetence. It had the effect of-[DOT]
Subtopic: MR. PHILPOTT NEWSPAPER COMMENT ON POSITION TAKEN IN HOUSE DIVISION