Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, on a question of order: I have no desire to be constantly rising to refer to matters of order, but I heard your honour say that the motion made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that this resolution be considered by the committee was carried, and that the Speaker do leave the chair. If that is so-
Mr. Speaker, I confess I do not quite follow the ruling-it may be a sad reflection on myself. The motion, as I understood it, was that Mr. Speaker should leave the chair and the house resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider this resolution. I understood your honour to say that such a resolution was not debatable. I personally am under the impression that it is debatable, although I confess I may be mistaken, and I think that, for the purpose of good order in the house, we ought to have that point made perfectly clear. I may be entirely wrong, but I should like your honour to explain just why that motion upon which the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) desired to speak is not a debatable motion.
Mr. Speaker, in the meantime may I ask the government if they have superannuated General McNaughton and Colonel Steel, the former a member of the national research council and the latter of the radio broadcasting commission, at the lowest rate of superannuation before imposing a cut of five per cent on all civil servants?
The motion to which the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) refers was a motion that the house go into committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house. This is the motion which I said was not debatable.
attention, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of accuracy, the fact that that form of motion was not properly put. I think the motion should have read, "at the next sitting of the house." Had it been done in that way I should not have taken objection.
Mr. Speaker, I notice in the public press a statement to the effect that there is to be appointed a board of harbour commissioners for the city of Hamilton. Does that mean that at some ports there will be harbour commissions, notwithstanding the decision of the government to abolish those commissions?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals):
The harbours of Canada are
of two categories. There are seven ports which are definitely national ports, and in all of which the government has a very substantial investment. In addition to that there are some five or six other ports, such as Hamilton, Toronto, New Westminster-to name only a few-in which the government has no substantial investment, and in which the city has attended to the development of the particular port; these ports have been administered by harbour commissions, on which the city has representation, and in such cases it is not the intention of the government to make any change in the system of administration. The reason, and I think the only reason, why the government has the appointment in some cases of one and in other cases of two harbour commissioners is that the commission is charged with the carrying out of certain government regulations.