1. How many positions are authorized in the establishment of the office of the Indian commissioner for British Columbia?

2. How many of these are currently occupied?

3. By classified occupation what, briefly, are the qualifications and duties of each of those in the currently-occupied positions?

4. What is the authorized number of personnel of the Alberni agency?

5. How many of the authorized positions are currently occupied?

6. What, including an indication of whether this position is currently occupied, are the duties and responsibilities of each position authorized in the operation of the Alberni agency?

7. Who are the members of the crew of the Skeena, the vessel operated by the Alberni agency?

8. What are the duties and responsibilities of each of the members of the crew?

9. What other duties, in addition to acting as a member of the crew of this vessel, does each of the members perform?

Return tabled.

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. In the spirit of co-operation which we have had tonight, I would like to conclude one pending matter, which is a decision on a question of privilege raised a few days ago. I hope it will be accepted by the two hon. members chiefly concerned, inasmuch as we have discussed this matter together and I am convinced that the principle which I shall announce shortly is right. I hope both hon. members will be

Question of Privilege

satisfied, although it is not my purpose to satisfy hon. members as long as the principle is right.

On December 13 the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) rose on a question of privilege, to the effect that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) had on the previous day stated the following:

Never before in our history has any member spent so much out of public funds in order to advertise a political party.

He stated that this was an imputation against his personal honour and against his activities as minister of agriculture. In consequence the member for Qu'Appelle asked not only for a complete withdrawal but a very strong apology as well.

In reply the member for Medicine Hat stated that if anything he said the day before could be construed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle as being offensive to him personally, he would withdraw that, and he repeated the same statement later on. In the course of this discussion the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) had this to say:

In so far as the question of privilege is concerned, when the remark was made yesterday by the hon. member for Medicine Hat I was quite astounded, because what he is saying is that the former minister of agriculture has misapplied public funds. In essence he is making a charge of fraud by misuse of public funds-

It is true, as the hon. member for Yukon said when he quoted Beauchesne's citation 108, that "libels on members have been constantly punished and scandalous charges or imputations directed against members are equivalent to libelous charges". I am not ready to agree that the remarks made in the course of the debate by the member for Medicine Hat constituted, in the words of the member for Yukon, "a charge of fraud by misuse of public funds".

There could not be any fraud because it is evident, and to everyone's knowledge, that every year large funds are spent by each and every department of the government for purposes of publicity. This expenditure may be directed toward giving publicity to laws passed by parliament, to orders in council, to regulations, to the work done in and by the different departments, to statements made by ministers at home or abroad in connection with their official duties, to social or political developments throughout the country.

There is no doubt, also, that all this government publicity under favourable circumstances, may react to the benefit of the party in power and to the ministers administering the different departments. Furthermore, if I correctly interpret what was in the mind of the member for Medicine Hat-this according to his own statements-his intention

Question of Privilege

was to refer to a political party, and then it becomes clear that the alleged libel would be one affecting the party itself rather than a single member of that party who at the time was responsible for the public relations of a department. As May has stated in the sixteenth edition, at page 459:

Expressions which are unparliamentary when applied to individuals are not always so considered when applied to a whole party.

On August 1, 1958-Hansard, page 2981- the Speaker on a similar question of privilege stated the following:

I think the hon. member for Vancouver East is taking more out of what was said than was implied. I remember quite distinctly that although the hon. member for Victoria began talking about the hon. member for Vancouver East, when he made the statement about a policy of shooting capitalists it referred rather generally to a group or party. It has been the practice in the house, as the hon. member will recall, that unless an allegation is made specifically against a member I have not felt it to be my responsibility to compel the hon. member to retract beyond what he himself feels he should retract.

In the present case it is quite possible that the hon. member for Medicine Hat used a metaphor to the effect, as he stated, that money out of public funds had been used in order to advertise a political party. I imagine that in the case of an alleged libel made in the house against a member of the house the test would be whether such declaration would be considered serious enough to give rise to an action for libel before a court, if such declaration had been made outside the house.

Beauchesne in the first lines of citation 108 states that:

-anything which may be considered a contempt of court by a tribunal is a breach of privilege as perpetrated against parliament-

And to repeat paragraph (3) of the same citation as quoted by the hon. member for Yukon:

(3) Libels on members have also been constantly punished: but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity, and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the house.

May I quote here the first part of citation 113 by the same author:

Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. There are privileges of the house as well as of members individually. Wilful disobedience to orders and rules of parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions, insults and obstructions during debate are breaches of the privileges of the house. Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to parliament and

[Mr. Speaker.!

interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of the members. But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege. An attack in a newspaper article is not a breach of privilege, unless it comes within the definition of privileges above given, and then a member is bound to lay on the table the newspaper in which the article complained of appears.

Here, if the house will allow me, I would like to refer to a citation in May's sixteenth edition, page 140:

Where the committee recommended that, in view of the explanation offered by the offender, and of his expression of regret for the offence he had committed, the house should take no further action in the matter, or that the conduct complained of was not such a breach of the privileges of the house as called for any further action on its part or that, in the opinion of the committee, the house would best consult its own dignity by taking no further notice of the libel, or that no further time should be occupied in the consideration of the offence, further action was not taken by the house.

In another instance after the committee of privileges had reported that in their opinion a breach of privilege had been committed but that in the circumstances the house would best consult its own dignity by taking no further action in the matter, the house resolved that it agreed with the committee in their report.

Having brought the above comments to the attention of the house, may I now say that the words quoted at the beginning, namely:

Never before in our history has any member spent so much out of public funds in order to advertise a political party-

-are not words that should have been used, but on the contrary, those words might give rise to a question of privilege. However, in view of the explanations offered by the offender and of his understanding of the matter as declared when the discussion took place, the house would best consult its own dignity by taking no further action in the matter.

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, through the usual channels I have ascertained that there might be accorded unanimous consent to move a motion, and in a desire to wind up the session and strike a blow for liberty and freedom I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), with unanimous consent:

That the Sergeant-at-Arms, pursuant to standing order 88, be instructed to grant pro tem a card admitting Raymond Rodgers to the facilities of the press galleries of this house.

Mr. Pickersgill:

I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word on this. I feel I should take the responsibility, notwithstanding the offer I made-I do not think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will accuse me

of double dealing-to say that after this matter was brought up Your Honour made certain observations about it, and for that reason I feel that we should acquiesce in the position taken by Your Honour. Therefore, I do not feel I would wish to agree to give unanimous consent, and in doing that I hope I will not be misunderstood.

Mr. Speaker:

I regret that unanimous consent is not given and that I cannot receive the motion. Unless there is some other business we will suspend the session till the call from the other place.

Mr. Nowlan:

Did I understand Your Honour to say that we would suspend this session, or are you considering some documents before you before we proceed further?

Mr. Speaker:

At this time of night free interpretation I believe is given to ordinary words on some occasions. If I said "session" I certainly meant "sitting". Usually it is customary to break for a visitor from the other place, but I might read this announcement now.

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:

Government House Ottawa, December 21, 1963.

Sir:

I have the honour to inform you that the Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at ten o'clock p.m. today, December 21, 1963, for the purpose of proroguing the first session of the twenty sixth parliament of Canada.

I have the honour to be, sir

Your obedient servant,

A. B. Cherrier, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

Mr. Pickersgill:

Before Your Honour leaves the chair or suspends the sitting, whatever the proper technical term is, I do not imagine that anyone can call me to order at this stage for anything I say, however foolish. But I do want to say how very much I have appreciated the co-operation of those members of other parties who have met with me regularly throughout the session to try to arrange the business of this first session of a new parliament in which no party had a majority, in which some problems arose which were not even expected when the session began, and where, notwithstanding some of the things we may have said to and about one another in the course of debate, a good deal has been

Royal Assent

accomplished and the order paper has been brought to a pretty satisfactory state at the end. This would not have been possible, sir, without the regular consultation and cooperation which hon. gentlemen opposite have given to me in the management of the business of the house, and I appreciate very much what they have done. I appreciate too the fact that we have been able in these last three weeks to arrange the business of the house, to arrange the sittings to dispose of the business without once having had a motion put to settle sitting hours.

I should also like to say that I believe this parliament has now become accustomed to itself and we have become accustomed to each other, and that it will be a great deal easier in another session for us to get down to business and dispatch the business we are all sent here to do, and perhaps even to criticize to the satisfaction of some members of the press.

And I must say, Mr. Chairman, in the other official language of the country, that I greatly appreciate the co-operation given to me by all members.

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):

It is usual at this hour of night before we approach the other place for prorogation to make certain good wishes, congratulations and expressions of mutual respect. This is all the more fitting on an occasion such as this when we are not only approaching prorogation but are also on the verge of the Christmas season.

I am sure the leader of the house will understand, when he says that we are getting adjusted to each other, that these adjustments must be on a somewhat temporary basis. As I told the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) when we were wishing each other a merry Christmas-I wished him a very merry Christmas and a very happy new year, but one not too prolonged in the forthcoming year. Possibly we have to bear some of these things in mind. Seriously, on this occasion I wish to say that we reciprocate what the leader of the house has said about the cooperation which has gone on, despite the criticism. We started in a rough parliament last spring. I think it is true that the Tories were mad and the Liberals were cocky, and it took us a while to get adjusted. But following the series of disasters which they faced, we felt better and I doubt whether any parliament has worked better than this one has in the last few weeks or months since we came back from the summer recess. I am sure that as long as we continue as a parliament this spirit will continue.

Royal Assent

On behalf of the official opposition I wish to extend to the Speaker of the house, to the Deputy Speaker, to the staff of the House of Commons and all those associated with them our best wishes for a very merry Christmas and the best of health and happiness in the coming year. As for our colleagues and associates on both sides of the house-we shall probably be seeing each other during the evening-I wish to all members of the House of Commons, wherever they may sit and to whatever party they belong, the very best of fortune in the coming year.

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):

should just like to say, in reply to the remarks made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) that this has been a remarkable session of parliament. It began in uncertain circumstances. It could easily have been a most unproductive parliament. I think history may well show that it has been a remarkably productive parliament, though a parliament in which no party had a clear majority. I think this has been due to the fine co-operation which has existed in all parts of the house and to the diplomacy and patience of the Secretary of State, who has been the leader of the house for the government, and to our patience in putting up with him. I hope the press will notice that although it is close to Christmas and late at night there is a remarkably good attendance of members in the dying hours of this session.

I was measuring the representation qualitatively. I thought it was about evenly balanced. I should like on behalf of the members of this party to express to all members in all parts of the house, to the staff and to the members of the press gallery our best wishes for a merry Christmas.

Mr. Bert Leboe (Cariboo):

Without being repetitious I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. members who have spoken and to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. We shall be looking forward to some real results when the next session comes round.

Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):

Mr. Speaker, since our group has been recognized, may I, on behalf of the members of the Ralliement Credistes, in spite of the fact that some are absent, join with the other members who spoke before me and wish to the staff of the House of Commons, to all our colleagues from the various regions of Canada, and to all the people of Canada, peace on earth and good will to men, wherever they may be.

[Mr. Nowlan.l

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):

Would you allow me to say a final word in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) who, I am sure, would have said something had he been here. He is in the other place.

Mr. Douglas:

Permanently?

Mr. Chevrier:

I am sure no one in the house would want him to be in any other place but this one.