I appreciate the remarks which have been made on the point of order. I am trying to follow the advice which has been given me. Unlike many other members of this house, all the legal training I possess has been received in the house itself. I am seeking to argue my point under the eyes of many learned counsel here and, sometimes, I am
confused about the different opinions they give me. However, I understand that in law that is often the situation.
The two gentlemen we are concerned with here are George Roland Foucher, of Montreal, Quebec and Jean Vinet, also of Montreal. I do not know if they have been involved in court proceedings but I think the hon. member for Cartier would agree with me that somewhere along the line we shall have to ascertain which people have been convicted of offences, whether I do it personally outside the house or whether it is done here in the miscellaneous private bills committee or in the committee of the other place. There would, then, be no aspersions cast on those who were left. On the other hand, cases in which those who had been convicted were involved would be thrown out. This question would not be so serious if it were not for the fact that there have been six or eight persons of this sort before the courts in the last six months. I am not in a position to say who they are. Perhaps these two gentlemen are not among them.
Since detectives have been used in this case I think the committee should give consideration to some of the legal opinions which have been expressed on this particular subject. I should like to refer to one which was quoted in the case which arose fairly recently. Power at page 335, puts it thus:
Evidence of adultery given by private detectives is subjected to the most careful scrutiny.
Subtopic: BRUCE REID CAMPBELL