Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):

I rise to what I believe to be a question of privilege. On Tuesday last I made a speech in this house in which I gave the house certain figures as to the number of railway passes issued in Canada. In the Ottawa Citizen of May 7 there appears an article in which it is reported to be stated by high officials of the board of transport commissioners that the figures quoted by me are not quite correct.

I take strong objection to the board of transport commissioners or any official issuing a denial of a statement made by me, or any other hon. member, especially when no member of this house can get the information from the board. If any contradiction is to be made I suggest that the minister in charge give instructions to the board that members of parliament be allowed to obtain information to w'hich I believe they are entitled.

Mr. G. A. ORUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley):

I wish to direct a question to the

Minister of Finance. I must apologize for not having given him notice, but it is a simple question. Has the matter been considered of having the amusement tax collected by the provinces on behalf of the federal government?

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

No, that proposal has not been given consideration.

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that my hon. friend would make a longer speech on the Alberta bank bill, and I am rather taken by surprise, at least to the extent that I have not before me in writing the amendment that I propose to suggest for the consideration of the house. If hon. members will refer to the speech made by my predecessor, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), last year when he was Minister of Finance, they will see the reasons for the amendment which I am about to move.

Last year the minister pointed out that there were a great many objectionable features to the bill, and that it did not come within the terms of a commitment or undertaking given by Mr. Dunning when he was Minister of Finance. Perhaps I should say there was a suggestion, rather than a commitment or undertaking, advanced by Mr. Dunning to the effect that if those in Alberta who were interested in certain monetary principles desired to put those principles into effect, they might apply for the incorporation of a bank within the four corners of the Bank Act and subject to its provisions. It was pointed out by my predecessor that the present bill is not within the terms and provisions of the Bank Act; that is, in a number of important and fundamental particulars it departs from the essential principles that are contained in the Bank Act.

For that reason my predecessor moved that the bill be not then read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, and I propose to make the same motion to-day. It may be that the sponsor of the bill and those supporting it have some further representations they would like to make in favour of the bill. It may be desirable for those representations to be received by the banking and commerce committee; in short, that the matter be gone into again. For that reason I am suggesting that the house take the course I am now proposing.

Mr. HOMUTH:

Might I ask if this is

different from the Ontario bill?

Mr. ILSLEY:

I am not acquainted with the Ontario bill.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

Like my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley), until I reached the chamber this afternoon I had not really anticipated that this bill would be called first;

but having looked at the order paper, I find that it has precedence over all other bills in this category. We had this bill before the house last year, and on the motion for second reading the present Minister of Finance, who was then the Minister of National Revenue-

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. The house will recall that the motion of the Prime Minister yesterday was that second reading should be given these bills and that precedence would be given to bills which were unopposed. I gather that there is some opposition to this motion for second reading. Therefore I think we should go on with the other bills on the order paper and dispose of them; those that are opposed will then be taken in the order in which they now appear on the order paper, after the unopposed bills have been disposed of.