On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think it is a well understood practice that reference should not be made, particularly derogatory reference, to people from the other place. I submit that the hon. member is clearly out of order in launching a tirade of that nature. If he wants to talk about a disgrace he should hold up a mirror and see it personified fully.
On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is the same old argument that the hon. gentleman is involved in, and he is not completely uninvolved in this particular case because I suggest he had a responsibility. In dealing with this case let me point out some of the evidence to establish the character of Jan Paul Hankowski himself. I would refer the committee to the Senate hearing in which the lawyer for the petitioner was involved:
Q. Mrs. Hankowski, you were living with your husband where?
A. In Montreal.
Q. How long before you were married did you know him?
A. About a year.
Q. What is his occupation?
A. Freelance photographer.
Q. As such, does he have steady employment with an employer?
A. No, he works for many different people.
Q. Since you married him what have been his actions towards you, has he been a steady person?
A. No, he has been very unstable, and drinking most of the time, and certainly didn't contribute towards my support.
Q. Who is supporting you?
A. I am supporting myself.
Q. And you supported him?
A. I supported him mostly.
Q. Did he ever take money from you against your will?
A. Yes, X have seen him take money from my purse.
Q. I note you served at one time this petition on him in New York city. Why did you have to do that?
On the point of order I raised a few moments ago concerning a derogatory remark about a person in the other place, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this matter should be disposed of and that you should request or order the hon. member to withdraw the remark he made.
I wish to associate myself with the request of the hon. member for Halifax, because this house has a great deal of respect for those people who take it upon themselves to hear evidence in the other place. They have considerable experience- more experience than the hon. member for Timiskaming has-and they are learned in the law, or at least the chairman of the divorce committee is. They are trying to do a good job. Witnesses appear before them and I think these smears and insults are unjustified. Even our courts have experienced perjured evidence, and if the hon. member wishes to point out an instance where the Senate divorce committee was misled, we should be pleased to hear him. But I do not think it is a function of members of this committee just to read from the evidence to fill in time.
I should like to remind the hon. member for Timiskaming that standing order 35 reads as follows:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the royal family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.
I shall be glad to. I have jotted down what the hon. member said. He said that the divorce committee of the other place is not sufficiently capable, or not capable of hearing such cases. That is an accusation of incompetence.
We are not discussing here the competence of the committee. We are discussing the bill, and I am sure the hon. member will withdraw the reference he made to the committee of the other house. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression he used about the hon. senator.
I bow to your wishes, though I really do not know what I am withdrawing. But if there was any reflection detrimental to any person I withdraw it.
The gentleman in question in this case, as is indicated in the evidence before the Senate committee, is a person of an artistic type. That, of course, does not mean anything bad. But the evidence also says he drank too much, that he did not hold a job, that he did not make any money, that he seldom worked and that when he did he supplemented the little he earned by money he got from his wife and other women. Every lawyer knows that consideration is given to the character and moral standing of people who appear in these cases. Being in possession of this information, the committee, both in this house and in the other place, was faced with an affidavit from this gentleman,
a contestation. It is signed by a well-known lawyer in Ottawa and it says:
Take notice that the respondent Jan Paul Han-kowski desires to oppose the granting of the divorce prayed for by the petitioner herein. The respondent resides at 144 East-40th Street, Room 201, New York City, State of New York, one of the United States of America.
The statement goes on to give the addresses at which the respondent can be reached in Ottawa and through his barrister. Then it continues:
The respondent Jan Paul Hankowski states that he has never been domiciled in Canada and that moreover the petitioner is not domiciled in Canada.
The respondent further denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the petition.
What evidence do we have to show that this may have been a fact?
May I ask the hon. member a question? I do not know from what document the hon. member has been reading, hence the reason for my question. I have the evidence here and it says that the respondent and the corespondent were called but did not appear. I should like to know whether this affidavit which the hon. member has read was filed subsequently with the Senate divorce committee?
I have a further question to ask. If the hon. member was aware of this why did he not himself or through a colleague in his party submit this for consideration by the committee on miscellaneous and private bills when it met?
That is exactly the problem. The committee on private and miscellaneous bills met without ever looking at the evidence in this particular case. The hon. member for Marquette is not aware of what is contained in the official documents. He asks why I did not raise this before. I only asked for this evidence on Thursday of last week and I now have before me a factual record giving all the details.