Mr. Speaker:

May I be permitted to make a statement at this time? Apparently my remarks on Monday have been interpreted by some members as changing the practice with respect to routine proceedings generally. I did not intend them to have that effect. I made my statement because I felt that last session I had allowed a practice to develop which permitted a member to rise at the opening of the house on a so-called question of privilege and to discuss certain matters which had taken place outside the house. That was a departure from our rules, and I did not think it was in the interests of parliament to allow it to continue. As Beauchesne states: "A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament." He further states:

Wilful disobedience to orders and rules of parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions. insults and obstructions during debate, are breaches of the privileges of the house.

These and other breaches of privilege, when they occur, should be brought to the attention of the house, and should be taken into consideration immediately and followed by the appropriate motion.

I do not need to remind hon. members that it is not a question of privilege whether a member should or should not have made a speech outside the house, or whether it would have been preferable to make it in the house. If the speech was made in wilful disobedience of the orders and rules of parliament, or contained libels on members, it would of course be a question of privilege which should be raised in the house. Otherwise the matter should be brought to the attention of the house by a question to the member or to the ministry when the orders of the day are called.

May I ask hon. members not to rise on questions of privilege unless they are satisfied that they are legitimate and not a so-called question of privilege.

My statement on Monday should not be interpreted in such a way as to prevent ministers, when motions are called, from

making important announcements of public policy. There is no positive rule to that effect, but it is a practice which has been sanctioned by usage both in the United Kingdom and in Canada. It has been my custom to allow the leader of the opposition to ask questions with respect to such statements. It is my intention to continue that practice. Of course no debate may take place at that time.

My anxiety is that I shall not, by any ruling I make, improperly curtail the rights and privileges of any hon. member, and I am confident that I shall have the continued co-operation of hon. members in my effort to carry out my duties in this manner.

Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport I table herewith summary of the revised pension plan for the Canadian National Railways.

1. Were the main switchboards of H.M.C.S. Inch Arran and H.M.C.S. Therese, now at the Saint John dry dock, sent to Montreal?

2. If so, for what reason?

3. What did it cost to crate and transport each of these switchboards to Montreal?

4. What is the name and address of the firm that is doing the work on these switchboards?

5. Is the work being done on a cost price basis or by contract?

6. What is the estimated cost?

1. No.

2 and 3. Not applicable.

4. Bedard-Girard Limited, Quebec, P.Q.

5. Firm price contract.

6. $8,589.

1. Was Canada charged by the United States for the use of training facilities at Fort Lewis by Canadian troops going to Korea?

Questions

2. It so, how much per capita, per diem, was Canada charged for the use of billets, equipment, maintenance, United States training personnel, etc.?

3. What is the total amount charged Canada to date for these purposes?

4. Have United States authorities charged Canada for the use of United States facilities in Korea by Canadian troops on active service there?

5. If so (a) what such facilities are used by Canadian forces? (b) what has been the total amount charged to date for the use of each of these facilities? (c) what is the per capita amount per diem charged for the use of each of these facilities?

1. Canada was charged by the United States for maintenance support provided the Canadian army at Fort Lewis, Washington.

2. $2.46 (U.S. funds).

3. $2,519,883.78 (U.S. funds).

4. The United States have charged Canada for the provisions of maintenance supplies and services in the Korean theatre.

5. (a) Services (b) Total amount (c) Rate per capita per diem and Supplies paid, Nov. 7, Advance 2 Bn PPCLI 2 Bn PPCLI 25 CIB1950-July 28, party Nov. 7, Dec. 18, 1950- Feb. 17,1951- May 6, 1951-1951.* 1950-Dec. 17, Feb. 16, 1951. May 5,1951. Jul. 28, 1951.1950. $(US) $ (US) $(US) $ (US) $(US)Quartermaster .. 1,264,086.88 1.8862 2.0927 .8727 2.0532Engineering 54,423.50 .0848 .0812 .0812 .0812Signal 23,298.09 .1403 .1343 .1343 Ordnance 2,323,363.98 3.0679 3.0679 3.6937Chemical 26,682.04 .0293 .0281 .0281 .0439Medical 992,569.99 .0666 1.6422 1.6422 1.4699Transportation .. 598,323.02 .3527 .8753 .6853 .9502Total $5,282,747.50 $ 2.5599 $ 7.9217 $ 6.5117 $ 8.2921Payment to the United States for services and supplies from July 28 to date is at

present under negotiation.

1. What were the total profits of taxable companies in 1951 compared with 1950?

2. Of the companies reporting profits of $100,000 and over in 1951, how many increased their profits over those of the previous year?

3. In what industrial divisions or classifications do these companies fall, such as manufacturing, mining, retailing, and so forth?

He said: I would like to withdraw this question for the time being, if I 'have permission.

Mr. Speaker:

Dropped.

Mr. Balcom:

What money grants have been paid the city of Halifax, the town of Dartmouth, the county of Halifax, for 1951, in lieu of taxes on (a) H.M.C. dockyard; (b) national harbours board property; (c) other defence establishments?

He said: I would like to rephrase this question, and would ask permission to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker:

Dropped.