Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):
There was a point of order raised by my hon. friend here arising out of an error on the part of the minister, who announced that he was reading from a letter from Lord Beaverbrook when he intended to read from a statement enclosed in a letter from Lord Beaverbrook. That emerged afterwards. There is no doubt that the minister said that he was reading from a letter from His Lordship, and I assumed at the beginning that it was an official letter and therefore that it was entitled to be tabled in this house. But the actual position seems to be this, that Lord Beaverbrook prepared a statement for the House of Lords, and then enclosed a copy of it in a letter to the minister. The statement which he made in the House of Lords was properly read by the minister to the house. I do not
Post-War Civil Aviation
think he was called upon to read a personal letter. What happened was that the minister fell into error in the first place and thereby led us into error, and then later corrected the position. I conceive the rule to be this, that any official communication read to the house should be tabled, but personal letters should not be tabled and should not even be referred to.
May I be permitted to say a word on one other point arising out of the minister's statement? I understood him to say that the British government in the first instance had accepted the Canadian proposal. My question is based on a statement in a Canadian press dispatch which appears in the Ottawa Journal this morning entitled "U.K.-"