Hon. J. W. Monleilh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, the house may be interested to learn of a major step forward being taken this week in connection with oral poliovirus vaccine. Starting today, community-wide use of the oral vaccine will be demonstrated in the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. This demonstration, and one being held later this week in Wedgeport, Nova Scotia, will be the first on a community basis in this country.

The new vaccine, manufactured in Canada, is of the Sabin type, similar to that which has been used in other parts of the world.

Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber) moved:

That the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Thursday, February 23, 1961, be now concurred in.

Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, this is the matter with respect to which you said you were going to give a ruling on a certain point.

Mr. Speaker:

Is this the matter in which the minister claimed-

Mr. Nowlan:

The usual reservation, to which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate took exception.

Mr. Speaker:

If the minister would state the reservations that he meant it would put the matter before us. I am not sure whether

the point of order was raised on the basis of the phraseology used by the minister or on his claim to incorporate the reservation as a part of the order. Perhaps the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would indicate.

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):

I shall be very glad to state the position I took the other day. Before doing so I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister of National Revenue for not pressing the point on Wednesday, when I was unable to be here.

The objection I took, sir, was that the minister had said "with the usual reservations", a phrase that has come increasingly to be used about these motions without any statement as to what is that usual reservation. The reason I raised the point was that it did not seem to me there was any kind of usual reservation that could possibly apply to this particular motion. But I also raised it for another reason, namely that I think we are slipping into the unfortunate habit of passing these motions without having an explicit statement, if there is a statement, of the nature of the reservation so the records of parliament will be quite clear on the subject.

Moreover, I maintain that since these motions are not debatable they are, therefore, not amendable, because it is not possible to make an amendment without engaging in debate, and I think the only basis on which an amendment to the motion can be made is with the unanimous consent of the house. Bearing in mind the nature of these motions, which are to get information for use in debate, I think it is very desirable that hon. members should know precisely what they are going to get.

There is another objection to having reservations made even when they are explicit reservations, such as getting the consent of provincial governments. In most instances it is just as easy to have the motion stand and get the consent before the motion is dealt with; then the member who moves the motion knows the material will be produced quickly, whereas in a good many instances there seem to be long delays as a result of these things going off the order paper and into a kind of oblivion. That was the point I was making. I took exception as a member to giving unanimous consent to the reservation in this particular instance.

Motions for Papers

Mr. Nowlan:

Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to prolong the debate on a procedural matter. I used the expression "subject to the usual reservations" because there are various reservations. It may be a matter of confidential memoranda interdepartmentally; it may be a matter of getting the consent of the writer, perhaps a provincial premier, and very often the phrase "subject to the usual reservations" has been used.

I should like to point out that my hon. friend's suggestion, although he has modified it today, was that this practice had grown up under this government and I, putting it mildly, said that it had been followed before. I thought I could find no better authority on this matter than a Nova Scotia minister, and I think all hon. members will agree with that. I find that in 1957, the last time a minister from Nova Scotia representing the Liberal party was sitting on this side, Hon. Mr. Winters said, as found in volume 2, page 1824, "subject to the usual reservation". As found in volume 1, page 793, he said "subject to the usual reservations". As found in volume 3, page 2505, he said "subject to the usual reservations".

I am quite sure that if Mr. Winters took that position it was well founded. I do not have to go back beyond 1957, but undoubtedly there were scores more such instances. In this case the motion seeks orders issued by the minister, which is a rather euphemistic phrase, and I have simply used the reservation in this instance to prevent any confidential or interdepartmental memo from being produced subject to this order.

Mr. Pickersgill:

If I may say a word about this point since I did make the observation, like the minister I took the trouble to go through the 1957 Hansard as well, and it is quite right that the minister from Nova Scotia, and on one occasion one other minister, said "with the usual reservations". However, in all the cases I saw there was on the face of them a reference to a provincial government, so that there could have been no doubt of the meaning, although it was a sloppy way to proceed, and I say that without reservation; I quite sincerely hold that view. I think we should maintain the proper forms of parliamentary practice most meticulously. Although I admit that the Minister of National Revenue was right that all the sloppiness was not in one part of the house, there was no ambiguity about those cases, whereas in this case it is quite impossible to see what there could be a reservation about.

There was one other point raised by the minister which is important, and I should like to say a word about it if I may. Hon. members do from time to time set down motions for papers which the government can

claim are privileged. Those motions are not out of order. They have never been ruled by any of your predecessors to be out of order. They are motions on which the house can

make a decision, and therefore to just say "subject to the usual reservations" with respect to that kind of communication would not be in keeping with the previous practice.

Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):

On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the number of motions that are accepted with the addition of the phrase "subject to the usual reservations". If the reservation involves a confidential document exchanged between a body of the government and a minister, I can understand the reservation. However, I cannot understand any other reservation. It has been pointed out to the house repeatedly in past years that there are no other reservations, and the consent of a provincial government is not needed in order to have the production of documents. If there is a communication between a provincial government and the federal government and this house decides that it wants production of the document, no consideration should be granted in the case of anything submitted by provincial governments.

In my opinion the term "with the usual reservations" is being enlarged and extended to an unwarranted degree. Unless the matter concerns the internal affairs of a department of the government, I feel that the phrase "with the usual reservations" should not apply, and I do not like the growing tendency that has been obvious over the last five or six years of a minister rising and saying "subject to the usual reservations" when none of us knows exactly what is meant by "usual reservations".

Mr. Speaker:

The point which has been raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate involves two problems. The first problem is the practice which permits the ministry to claim the right to withhold documents upon certain recognized grounds by asking the house to accept the motion for production of documents on the understanding that certain documents will not be produced. The other question is related to it. As I understand his second objection it is that we are, in effect, amending a nondebatable motion.

Perhaps it would be worth while to take a minute to read standing order No. 47. It reads:

Notices of motions for the production of papers which the member asking for the same intends to move without discussion, shall be marked by him with an asterisk and shall be placed by the Clerk on the order paper under the heading "Notices of motions for the production of papers". All such

lotices when called shall be forthwith disposed )f; but if on any such motion a debate be desired, t will be transferred by the Clerk to the order >f "Notices of motions".

It is clear from a reading of this standing )rder that such motions are not debatable. They are a special category of motion to :>e disposed of forthwith or, if they are to je debated, they are dealt with under a ;pecial procedure. It is not in order, there-'ore, to move an amendment. In fact no nember could get the floor to move an imendment.

However, there has been a well recognized practice established in the house that a ninister, who does not wish to be bound by an unqualified order of the house to pro-luce documents which he does not propose :o produce or does not wish to produce for some recognized reason of public policy, may rise and state his objection so that his objection will be a matter of record. This statement is, to some extent, a protection of the minister against the unqualified order of the louse calling upon him to produce the documents mentioned. It is a practice which has commended itself to the house and which las been well established. Whatever the significance of such a statement may be, whether or not it amounts to an amendment, it is an established practice. I do not lelieve the hon. member rose to object to she practice being continued.

It may be of interest to the house to know hat when these orders are passed by the house hey are noted in Votes and Proceedings with-iut any reference to the reservation made by she minister. He is, therefore, confronted with an order of the house in unqualified terms ,f he has not risen in his place to claim shat certain documents are privileged as nterdepartmental communications, confiden-sial documents, private papers or whatever s>ood reason there is, in the public interest, for not calling upon the minister to pro-luce the documents. He might very properly ae said to be in contempt of the house if shis reservation were not noted.

There is an instance of that kind with which the Prime Minister will be familiar as he was a participant in the discussion, ft arose in 1952. I will give the citation Decause it makes it clear that the practice we have been following in recent years was well established even then. The reference is contained in Hansard for 1952, April 28, page 1647, and that very point relating to she protection of the minister in delaying siis compliance with an order of the house was at issue. I express my personal view that it would be preferable for a minister making reservations with respect to an order

Motions for Papers

for the production of documents to do so in terms as explicit as possible. There are at least two categories of such reservations, confidential papers and documents to which other governments are a party. I note that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam states that this latter is not a proper category and that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate suggests that such an exception should not be allowed and that it would be better to defer the making of the order until any necessary consent of another government had been obtained. Whether we follow this practice or not, I think it would be desirable that the reservation be claimed in specific terms. The minister may wish to follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and stand the motion, or he may wish to proceed, asking the house to accept the motion, subject to the reservation claimed.

The other problem, that of amending a motion which is not debatable, has been dealt with by the house by unanimous consent, permitting the ministerial reservation to be expressed by the Chair when the motion is put. In effect a condition is attached to the motion with the unanimous consent of the house before the motion is put. The minister is protected by what he has said in the house, so if the minister claims the protection, it should be stated as expressly as it can be stated. The only obstacle to being explicit is that some of these general orders cover documents which have not yet been identified and the minister does not know what he will be faced with when he complies with the order.