Mr. Jean Frangois Poulioi (Temiscouata):

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the debates committee of the House of Commons I rise to say a word about a noncontentious matter, namely, the publication of Hansard of yesterday, with the full speech of the Minister of Finance and a lengthy appendix. Every hon. member has before him this morning the English text of Hansard in book form, including the speech of the Minister of Finance, with seven tabulations, an appendix, fifty-two other tabulations and eleven full pages of supplementary detailed tables.

It is my great pleasure to pay a special tribute to the king's printer and to the whole staff. Sometimes we have to complain about certain things, but at this time the whole personnel of the printing bureau deserves special praise. The work could not have been done anywhere else except in the printing department of the New York Times-and my remark applies to the whole of North America. I know of no other place where such a piece of work could have been done so well and so expeditiously.- I do not pay a tribute only to the higher-ups of the printing bureau-they deserve it; but I have in mind also the humble typesetter and proofreader. I know what it is to publish books, and this book, sir, is a credit to the members of the staff of the printing bureau. I hope that the minister will tell them it is the desire of the house to praise them and to encourage them to continue to do such fine work in the future.

Hon. Colin Gibson (Secretary of State):

thank the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for bringing to the attention of the house the splendid work which is being done by the employees of the printing bureau. I shall be glad to inform them of his comments in that regard. I have often felt that hon. members do not realize that the members of the night staff of the printing bureau work month after month from ten o'clock until eight in the morning, at very high pressure and in difficult surroundings. The hon. member's word of tribute to these men will be appreciated.

Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roselown-Biggar): The

Hansard staff should be included as well for the remarkable job they do.

Mr. J. T. Richard (Otlawa Easi):

I want to join in the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata. We should add the translators, who are also the unsung heroes in a historical document of this kind.

Mr. Speaker:

I should like to make a statement to the house following the remarks made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who raised a question of privilege which will be found in the official report of the debates of the House of Commons of Tuesday, March 22, 1949, at page 1745. I call the attention of hon. members to the following paragraph:

My point of privilege is this, sir. Did you, in your position as Speaker, consent to the alteration of this resolution? Was it placed before the house, or was the alteration made at the request of the government?

The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) gave notice on Friday, March 18, that he would move the following resolution:

That, in the opinion of this house, the government should seek the co-operation of the provinces with the view of the adoption by parliament of a new constitution for Canada and Canadians which would be a statute of Canada repealing the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, resulting in the making of Canada a truly sovereign and independent nation, a separate republic outside of the British commonwealth of nations, free of economic or other commitments, whether in peace or in war.

This notice of motion appeared word for word on the order paper of Monday, March 21, but it was altered on the hon. member's instruction, and appears with material changes on the order paper of Tuesday, March 22. The hon. member for Lake Centre drew attention to the fact that the proposed resolution had been mutilated to read as follows:

That, in the opinion of this house, the government should seek the consent of the provinces with the view of the adoption by parliament of a new constitution for Canada and Canadians which would be a statute of Canada repealing the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946, resulting in the making of Canada a truly sovereign and independent nation, a separate republic, free of economic or other commitments toward the British commonwealth of nations, whether in peace or in war.

House of Commons

The question has arisen whether or not the alteration was so material that it could not be made before the motion was taken up by the house. Mr. Speaker Lemieux decided on March 26, 1928, that a motion which differs materially from the terms of the notice can only be proposed with the consent of the house, or upon the renewal of the notice. I agree with that ruling.

The change was made at the request of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, but crutside my knowledge. My own opinion is that the notice of motion should not have been placed on the order paper at all. Its proposal that this parliament, constituted under the British North America Act, take upon itself to adopt a new constitution resulting in making Canada a separate republic outside of the British commonwealth of nations comes in direct conflict with the oath taken by members of this house, which oath is as follows:

I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George VI.

May says, as quoted in citation 365 of Beauchesne's second edition, that:

When a notice, publicly given, is obviously irregular or unbecoming, the Speaker has interposed and the notice has not been received in that form. He has also directed that a notice of motion should not be printed as being obviously designed to give annoyance.

I have no doubt in saying the notice of motion should not appear on the order paper, and, using my authority as the custodian of our procedure, I have given the necessary instructions to strike it out of the order paper.

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):

Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate on what day the debate is to open on the North Atlantic treaty?

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

No, not this morning. I had hoped it might be possible to reach it this week, although now that does not appear to be probable. There is the emergency legislation which has to be dealt with if it is not to be allowed to expire by lapse of time. Just as soon as that is disposed of, I think we should provide an opportunity for an initial debate on the North Atlantic treaty in accordance with the terms of the motion which is on the order paper. I should like to have that matter discussed as soon as we have disposed of these emergency measures.

Mr. Drew:

The subject matter is of considerable importance, and hon. members will wish to arrange to be here. They all have

their own arrangements which they are making from time to time. I think the time for the debate can best be arranged between the party whips by setting a definite date a few days in advance. I suggest therefore that the debate should not come on without due warning; hon. members should have an opportunity to make appropriate arrangements.

Mr. St. Laurent:

I shall bear in mind the observations of the hon. member, and try to arrange it so that there will be due notice to all members of the time at which the debate will begin.

Mr. Maclnnis:

Is it not a fact that members of the house are paid $6,000 a year to be here?

Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):

I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention to have the house sit on Saturday if we finish the emergency legislation by Friday night.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

No. The form of the motion indicated that it was only for the purpose of disposing of matters which had to be dealt with before the expiry date of the existing legislation that this departure from the standing orders was requested. If we are successful in disposing of that legislation by Friday night, there will be no reason for asking hon. members to sit on Saturday.

Mr. Knowles:

The order would lapse.

Mr. St. Laurent:

The order would lapse.