Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The rules concerning the presentation of petitions are found in standing order 68, section 7 of which reads as follows

On the next day following the presentation of a petition the Clerk of the House shall lay upon the table the report of the clerk of petitions upon the petitions presented and such report shall be printed in the Votes and Proceedings of that day. Every petition so reported upon, not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this house and which, according to the standing orders or practice of this house, can 'be received, shall then be deemed to be permitted to be read and received.

My contention is that this petition contains irregularities that make it non-receivable. The practice of this house to which section 7 which I have quoted refers is well defined in paragraph 591 of "Beauchesne" third edition, which reads:

The language of a petition should be respectful and temperate and free from disrespect to the Sovereign, or offensive imputation upon the character and conduct of parliament, or the courts of justice, or other tribunal, or constituted authority.

I refer Your Honour to the fourth paragraph of the petition, which reads as follows:

That recent experiences of Jehovah's Witnesses in the province of Quebec prove that throughout the whole dominion basic personal rights are open to attack and loss because of a failure to have them guaranteed by a written constitution.

The words "recent experiences in the province of Quebec" cannot mean anything else than the legal proceedings that were instituted against Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore this paragraph constitutes an offensive imputation upon the character and conduct of the courts

of justice, which, as is well known, have already rendered decisions on the conduct of Jehovah's Witnesses.

There is another reason why this petition is irregular. It is also a well known fact that matters pertaining to the conduct of Jehovah's Witnesses are at the present time under consideration by some tribunals, namely, courts of the sessions of the peace and the Supreme Court of Canada. Therefore, as it is a matter sub judice, it should not form the subject of a petition before the House of Commons.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I should like first of all to say to' the hon. member that I am very grateful to him for being kind enough to advise me of his intention to raise a point of order today when the report of the clerk of petitions came before the house, because it gave me an opportunity to study the matter.

The petition of Hugh Kirkpatrick of Nanaimo, British Columbia, and 500,966 other Canadians was presented in the house on the 9th instant by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). Paragraph 4 thereof reads as follows:

That recent experiences of Jehovah's Witnesses in the province of Quebec prove that throughout the whole dominion basic personal rights are open to attack and loss because of a failure to have them guaranteed by a written constitution.

The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) takes exception to this allegation on the ground that there is now before the courts of the province of Quebec a case connected with the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in that province. The hon. member's contention is that the matter, being sub judice, cannot be dealt with on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have failed to find any authority or precedent justifying the contention that a petition cannot be received on the ground that it refers to matters before the courts. There is no reflection on the courts of Quebec in the statement that recent experiences prove that personal rights are open to attack and loss. As a matter of fact I am inclined to think that, as long as the case on trial is not discussed but only referred to, a petition referring to it is quite in order. The prohibition referring to sub judice matters applies particularly to debates but it cannot curtail a citizen's right to present a petition. All authorities agree that the right of petitioning parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary

Questions

procedure. The historical aspects of petitioning were originally directed to judicial rather than legislative remedies.

In 1669, the Commons of England passed a resolution declaring that it is the inherent right of every commoner to prepare and present petitions to the House of Commons in case of grievances and the House of Commons to receive the same; that it is an undoubted right and privilege to judge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received. The mere mention of recent experiences in the province of Quebec with respect to personal rights is not sufficient to deprive petitioners of their right to request that the British North America Act be amended so as to empower parliament to pass a federal bill of rights in order to secure freedom of speech, press and worship to all people in Canada. The report of the clerk of petitions is in order in the statement that all the requirements of standing order 68 have been complied with and there can be no objection to the petition being received.

Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):

In accordance with the provisions of section 28 of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1927, I desire to lay on the table a copy of order in council P.C. 2009 of May 23, 1947, respecting advances to the Canadian National Railway Company to enable the company to acquire the remaining capital stock of Trans-Canada Air Lines.

1. With what provinces have agreements been reached for the provincial department to handle family allowance investigation work?

2. What are the financial arrangements with each province in the carrying out of this work?

Mr. MARTIN:

Stand.

Mr. WRIGHT:

Mr. MARTIN:

As the hon. gentleman knows, I would not keep him waiting very long if I could possibly avoid it. Since we have the same objective in mind I hope he will allow the matter to stand for a little while longer. As he appreciates, the matter is one which involves many factors. I shall do my best to give an answer to his important question at the earliest possible moment.

1. What is the total number, by provinces, of. those who have moved from other parts of Canada into the province of British Columbia in each year since the 1st January, 1943?

2. Are any figures available for the current year?

1. No information. Although there are no available statistics on the number of persons, by provinces, who have moved from other parts of Canada into the province of British Columbia in each year since the 1st of January, 1943, an estimate has been made, based on the count of ration book distribution, of the net internal migration by provinces for the periods 1941 to 1944 and 1944 to 1946. These estimates show that there has been a net inflow of population into British Columbia of 89,000 between 1941 and 1944 and a further net migration into the province of

56.000 between 1944 and 1946. Since the estimated net movement out of the prairie provinces between 1941 and 1944 was 126,000 and between 1944 and 1946, 101.000, it would appear that most of the gain in population in British Columbia over this period due to internal migration was from the movement of the people from the prairie provinces to British Columbia.

2. No.

Mr. CHURCH:

Is the government a party to the agreement or treaty made with France by Great Britain as to an economic union of these two countries, and for an economic union with Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. No agreement has been concluded by the United Kingdom and France regarding an economic union between the two countries. Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg alone are parties to the instruments of agreement creating an economic union between these three countries.

Questions