Mr. Speaker:

Well, if hon. members feel that by the very fact they can steer away from the rules, they have been changed, the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cartier is not a proper one; but if the rules in Beauchesne are to be considered as still in existence, there is a good deal of merit in the point raised by the hon. member for Cartier. I have read these rules before, and no matter how unpleasant it is for me to read them again I shall have to do so. If an hon. member

3058 HOUSE OF

Inquiries of the Ministry puts an oral question, that oral question is governed by the same rules which govern a written question. If the hon. member were to put his oral questions on the order paper, would they pass the clerks at the table? That is the test.

Now, in putting a question a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits:

In asking a question, observations which might lead to debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limits of a question.

The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not to supply it to the house.

A question oral or written must not:

multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point.

inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true.

contain an expression of opinion.

be a speech, however short; nor be of unreasonable length.

raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question.

ask the government's opinion on matters of policy.

These are only some of the paragraphs which are found in citation 295.

The current session is one that all hon. members know may be cut short by dissolution. It is because I have taken that into account that I have allowed some latitude at question time.

The obvious remark I should make at this moment-perhaps not particularly at this moment but with regard to many questions that are being asked at this time-would be that some of these questions should wait until the estimates of the department of the minister concerned are before the committee of supply. There may be a chance that we will not reach these various departments in supply, and even if we reach them it may be that we will not have time to deal with any of the matters that will have to be dealt with at that time.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I think will agree with me that with respect to the latitude that has been given he would be quite entitled to proceed today in the same manner that has been followed at previous sittings in the course of this session and even prior to this session, but in strict accordance with the rules I think there are certain limitations which an hon. member should impose upon himself in pursuing a point at question time.

Mr. Knowles:

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling but I rise on a question of privilege. As a member of parliament I would point out that parliament by a statute has given to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the control of the character of any and all programs broadcast by the corporation on its own or any private stations. In that same statute of this parliament there is provision for a minister

of the crown to be the person through whom the corporation reports to parliament. Parliament has not delegated any other authority over the corporation to a minister; and the point of my question of privilege is that the rights of parliament have been usurped by the minister by virtue of what he told us yesterday, in that he has made repeated representations to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Speaker:

That is not a question of privilege. We are now at question time. The hon. member has asked a question and has received a reply. It may be that the minister has an interpretation as to his own duties which is different from that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Mr. Knowles:

But there is a statute-

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member is interpreting the statute in his own way, and he claims that according to his own interpretation the minister does not interpret his duties properly. The minister has indicated by his answer that he has a different understanding of the statute. It seems to me that this is not a matter for debate at this time, and it certainly is not the basis for a question of privilege.

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation assign special television personnel and equipment to accompany the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys on their recent trips abroad?

Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.

Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any comment to make on the tragic event which took place today in Cairo? I refer to the death of Mr. E. H. Norman.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of Ihe Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to say a word. Wholly desirable as is the objective of preserving freedom, that freedom will not be preserved by adopting the techniques and instruments of communism.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Diefenbaker:

I think all of us in this house cannot but feel a sense of deep sorrow that this man's good name was filched from him by indiscriminately branding him as an enemy, trying him by suspicion and, in the public mind to a great extent, convicting him by innuendo. I think every member of this house will agree that the terrible results in the lives of those subjected to such indiscriminate attacks as were made on this man cannot but lead each of us to determine that we shall not ourselves engage in words which can only destroy the heart and soul of those attacked.

Inquiries of the Ministry while it may be unusual to suggest this, and I doubt that it has ever been done before, I suggest through you, sir, to the Minister of Public Works that parliament show its feelings by having the flag on this building flown at half-mast for one who served well and died in the service of his country.

Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, may I have the indulgence of this house to say something on this matter. It is obvious that murder has spoken with most miraculous tongue. I believe Mr. Norman was murdered by slander. I believe he was killed as surely as if somebody had put a knife into his back; and those who are responsible unhappily are above the law.

It was with the greatest sense of shock, I am sure, that all of us heard this morning of the death of Mr. Norman; and we in this party certainly associate ourselves with what has been said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Leader of the Opposition.

We regret Mr. Norman's death profoundly, but here surely there is once again a lesson for all of us. I hope very much that when the minister does convey his regrets to Mr. Norman's widow he will include with his expression of sympathy the sympathy of the whole house.

Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that there is anything we can add to what has already been said, except perhaps to say that once again we are face to face with the fact that men in high places have terrific responsibilities, responsibilities which may be far beyond the capacity of the public mind to conceive. Some of us are conscious of the things that can happen under the stress and strain of responsibility, and of what might happen when those responsibilities bring nervous breakdowns.

I am sure we join with others who have spoken in expressing our sympathy with Mr. Norman's widow and his family.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whole civil service of Canada I wish to express grateful thanks to hon. members for this recognition of the loyal and devoted service which is rendered by those who are devoting their lives to the administration of the public affairs of their fellow citizens.