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

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is expected that this will be the last day before the house rises for the Easter holiday, I should1 like to refer to a matter on a question of privilege, in view of the fact that I was not in the house the day that this matter arose.

On March 12, as reported on page 1133 of Hansard, a question asked by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr Courtemanche) was passed as an order for return. Had I been here I would have objected to that procedure, because a question in precisely the same form was asked and answered by the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor), with regard to certain developments at Sept lies. The wording was precisely the same, the other question was answered, and I am sure this is a question that should have been answered. The hon. member for Labelle has been seeking the information and has not been able to obtain it. We shall now be adjourning for the holiday, and I should like an explanation why this question was made an order for return when a question in the same form with respect to another project was answered a short time ago. I should like to know why the information has not been made available.

Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should say something in reply to the question of privilege that has been raised'. I was not advised that a question of privilege was to be raised, or I might have looked up some of the authorities with respect to passing a question as an order for return.

The simple fact of the matter is, however, that the question involves a reactor in the atomic energy project at Chalk River. It was passed as an order for return and sent out to the atomic energy control board in the usual way. I presume the answer will come back in the ordinary manner and will be given in the house.

If there is any guilt at all it is the guilt of trying to be careful with respect to some of these things that involve some degree of security. I am not in a position to discuss the question in detail, because the information is not at hand.

I might also point out that I have had the duty of answering a great number of questions in the house during the last five years, and members who have had questions on the order paper, the preparation of the answers to which appeared to be taking an unusual length of time, have often come to me and asked when they could obtain the answers. In this case there has been no such move. There could easily have been an explanation as to the procedure and possibly a speeding up of the obtaining of the answer. I will certainly try to get the information and give it to the house in the ordinary way.

Mr. Drew:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the impression should be left which has been left -and I know quite unintentionally-by the hon. member who has just spoken. I am informed by the hon, member for Labelle that he addressed a letter to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) yesterday stating that he was seeking this information, and that unless the information bad been made available to him by three o'clock today the matter would be raised. I am raising it because this question is one of procedure which I think carries with it important consequences.

I should also like to point out that the question is not with respect to the reactor, and is not one involving any matter of security. The question is: What firm of

engineers have been employed with regard to the construction of that reactor?

Mr. Mcllrailh:

I think I should point out that the question involves more than that. It is in five parts, and involves, among other things, the basis of the fees payable. I have not seen the information, and am not able to say whether it involves the question of security, but I have had enough to do with matters arising out of that project to know that answers must be looked at carefully and properly. There may be a question of security in what looks like an innocent question.

Mr. Drew:

I do not wish to enlarge this into a debate, but I would point out that there can be no possible question of security in answering a question as to what percentage

House of Commons

is to be paid to this firm of engineers for the work they are doing with regard to the reactor.

Mr. Mcllrailh:

I must object to that statement going on the record in that dogmatic way. How can the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) state that as a matter of fact, when I, who have been dealing with this sort of thing for some time in connection with this project, am not able to know whether or not a question of security arises.

Mr. Fraser:

Then you ought to read the question properly and you could understand it.

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Fraser:

Read the question. You can see it right there.

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:

Ottawa, March 21, 1951

Sir:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, Wednesday, the 21st of March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.

I have the honour to be, sir,

Your obedient servant,

J. F. Delaute

Assistant Secretary to the Governor General

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

Mr. Speaker, in view of the communication from the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that you have just read, I should like at this time to reserve the right, if it should be necessary to do so, to make some appropriate motion later in the day in order to dispose of the legislation for which royal assent would be required. I hope that it will not be necessary, and that by general consent we shall be able to dispense with making any motion; but I should not like to forgo at this time the right to submit a motion to Your Honour should it become apparent that it was necessary to do

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

Mr. Speaker, as I understand the Prime Minister he is simply placing the presentation of the motion in a reserved

position, and any of the rights with respect to consent or otherwise are not waived by the house.

Mr. St. Laurent:

All I am asking is that we may revert to motions without there being any other commitments on anybody's part.

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to lay before the house a report from the civil service commission recommending changes in the compensation of the staff of the House of Commons; also a report from the civil service commission recommending changes in the compensation of the staff of the library of parliament.