Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I beg your indulgence and I assure you that I shall be very brief.

On Tuesday, February 16, 1965, the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson made, in the house, a rather long statement, and I shall quote only one paragraph or two as follows:

In December of 1964, certain evidence was submitted to me regarding allegations involving the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. These allegations were in connection with certain transactions in which it was alleged he was a participant during the year 1961. They were not related to his membership of this house or of the government. I saw the hon. member and advised him that the evidence submitted required an investigation. To this he agreed.

I spoke to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville again on Wednesday, January 20, after I had been shown a preliminary report on the investigation into the matters in question. It appeared to me. as a result of having that preliminary report, that it would be best in all circumstances, and without prejudging the conclusion of the matter, for the hon. member to cease to be a member of the government. After discussing the matter with me, Mr. Dupuis submitted his resignation, which was accepted.

On the same day, the member of the Privy Council concerned stated as follows:

Mr. Speaker, if I have agreed to send my resignation to the right hon. Prime Minister, it is somewhat because I could foresee that some newspapers were ready to indulge in falsehoods about me, as I have mentioned earlier. I did not want those rumours and aspersions cast upon me to reflect on the cabinet, of which I was a member.

After a trial, the conclusions of which were not happy, the hon. Yvon Dupuis appealed the decision and the hon. Justice Montgomery ruled as follows:

Under the circumstances, I would maintain the appeal and acquit Appellant.

Hon. Justice Taschereau in turn said:

I agree with my colleagues and for the reasons they give, I would quash the verdict of guilty passed against the Appellant.

29180-4J

On the other hand, Mr. Justice Owen said-

Mr. Speaker:

Would the hon. member be so good as to state his question of privilege before the house?

Mr. Mongrain:

I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I had asked for your indulgence.

There is a question of Christian charity and respect for this house and for the Privy Council. Since this matter was officially reported in Hansard on July 16, 1965, I thought it proper, for the reasons which I have just mentioned, that this house should be apprised of the conclusion of this matter and that it should be recorded in Hansard, in order to safeguard the honour of this house and of all the members of the Privy Council as well as that of the family of the hon. Yvon Dupuis.

Mr. Speaker:

I take the liberty of quoting to the hon. member and all the other hon. members, section 113 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary rules and forms, fourth edition. It reads as follows:

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.

The hon. member did not follow up his question of privilege with a motion, and it does not seem to me that the privileges of the house or those of members individually are affected in the situation which was referred to by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres. Therefore, I have to tell him that his question of privilege, as such, is not in order.

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):

I should like to table, in English and in French, letters which I received from the presidents of the three most important Canadian automotive companies.

Furthermore, in reply to a question of the hon. member for York South, (Mr. Lewis), I should like to table the press release issued by the Department of Industry, following

September 16, 1868

Business of the House

recent talks with the United States with regard to the Canada-U.S. automobile agreement.

[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)

Mr. Speaker:

Has the minister leave to table these documents?

Agreed.

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will recall that on Friday last the house agreed to an order for the purpose of having government bills printed in bilingual form. In order that the practice of printing may be uniform in the case of all bills before the house, I ask leave to have the following order made at this time:

That, until otherwise ordered, private and public bills introduced by members of this house shall be printed in a bilingual form.

Mr. Speaker:

Has the minister leave to submit this motion to the house at this time?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are ten government notices of motion on the order paper today, may I be permitted to introduce a resolution to deal with all ten so they might be approved as a group?