Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):

Mr. Speaker,

I rise on a point of order, or perhaps it is a mixed point of order and question of privilege. It concerns the non-compliance with an order of the house in response to which a return was tabled yesterday. On June 23 a question which I asked was passed by the house as an order for return. It concerned the number of appeals taken to the Minister of National Revenue against assessment of succession duties. Part 3 of the question read as follows:

Of the appeals covered in part 2, were any taken by trust companies as executors? If so, what companies and how many by each company?

In the reply tabled by the Secretary of State containing information received from the Minister of National Revenue there is given in parts 1 and 2 the number of appeals taken, and then the return to part 3 is as follows:

Yes, in 29 cases by seven different trust companies. The names of the companies and the number of appeals by each may not be disclosed by reason of section 54 of the Dominion Succession Duty Act.

Section 54 of the Dominion Succession Duty Act, Mr. Speaker, has no application whatsoever to the situation and does not in any way preclude the information being given as requested. I therefore suggest to you that the return as tabled is an evasion of the question and is a non-compliance or refusal to comply with the order of the house. Therefore I ask you, sir, under the precedent of citation 445 in Beauchesne, second edition, to see that the necessary order is made discharging this order so that another return in corrected form may be brought down.

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. gentleman was kind enough to let me know he was going to raise a point of order based on citation 445 of Beauchesne, second edition, which reads as follows:

Where an order for a return is found not to comprise all the particulars desired, it is usual to discharge the order, and make another in a corrected form. Sometimes, however, without discharging the order, public papers or other particulars have been ordered to be added to the return, or the order for the return has been read and amended.

This citation is taken from May, twelfth edition, page 562. I think the hon. member is

under a misapprehension. Citation 445 applies to an order which has been moved but before it has been tabled. If it is found necessary to add anything in the meantime, then the order for a return that was made may be discharged and another one substituted. But we are past the stage of citation 445. An order has been made and pursuant to that order a return has been tabled. Therefore citation 445 does not apply. It would have applied before the order was tabled.

Mr. Fulton:

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand how it could have been discovered before the order was tabled because, of course, until the order was tabled there was no means of knowing what the reply was going to be. I thought that this would be the preferable way of proceeding rather than referring to citation 450, although I do think that in some respects it is applicable. It reads as follows:

If parties neglect to make returns in reasonable time, they are ordered to make them forthwith; or so much of returns as has not been made. If they continue to withhold them, they are ordered to attend at the bar of the house . . .

This seems to me to be an extreme course under the present circumstances. However,

I point out that although a return has been made it is not a complete return and therefore would fall under that portion of citation 450 reading "or so much of returns as has not been made", because the answer to part 3 of the question is not contained in the purported answer thereto. This is not a case where the minister can say he refuses to answer. This is an order of the house, and the order has not been complied with, at least in part. As I say, I do not see how that could have been discovered before any returns were tabled. If that rule were held, then the only other way of dealing with it would be under citation 450 which goes on to refer to calling the offending party before the bar of the house. I did not want to invoke that procedure at this point.

Mr. Speaker:

Would the hon. member be satisfied to let me have a few more hours to deal with the point because, just by reading citation 445, that would be my interpretation of it. I would like to study citation 445 in conjunction with citation 444 which applies to addresses, and citation 450. If the hon. member would be kind enough to let me have a few hours to examine the point I could perhaps deal with it tomorrow at the opening of the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry

Mr. Fulton:

That will be quite satisfactory, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):

On a

question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention to page 6164 of yesterday's Hansard in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is reported as follows:

No government statement has ever been made that warrants anything the hon. member has said. This is the kind of mischievous speech that is specialized in by the hon. member for Calgary South.

Then again, at page 6165, he said:

Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend started by reading a statement of policy stated by myself. He asked the Prime Minister if there was any change in that policy. The Prime Minister said no. He asked the Minister of Public Works, as Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce: "Has there been any change in policy?" The Minister of Public Works said no. Now he asks me if there is any change in policy-

Mr. Speaker:

May I interrupt the hon. member just to point out to him that what he is referring to now is a debate which occurred in committee. I feel that the proper course for the hon. member to follow is to rise on a point of privilege or order, if he so wishes, when the house is back in committee because the house does not know anything about what goes on in committee.

Mr. Trainor:

Very well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):

I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. What steps are being taken to protect the rights of individual Indians on that portion of the Caughnawaga reserve which is to be expropriated for the St. Lawrence seaway, particularly in view of the fact many of the persons concerned have very little knowledge of written English let alone the legal terms which are used in drawing up documents.

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):

I gather, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was not in the house

when the Minister of Transport had a bill before the house recently to amend the St. Lawrence seaway authority legislation to confirm the right of that corporation to expropriate Indian lands. At that time this question was raised and was answered in part by me and in part by my predecessor, who is now Minister of Finance. I do not think there are any difficulties at all of a real character. There are some individuals who have constituted themselves as advisers to a group of dissident Indians, not members of the band council at Caughnawaga, who are suggesting that there is something extra-legal or illegal about what it is proposed to do. Now, of course, the only way a legal question of that kind can be settled is in the courts. It is our advice, and we think it is good advice, that what has been done by this parliament, and what is being done by the governor in council, is completely within the law.

Mr. Castleden:

May I ask a supplementary question and I did not care particularly about his reference to my not being in the house. I heard what was said. At that time the minister said that the most friendly relationship existed between the department and the band concerned.

My question is with regard to certain individual Indians who do not understand legal phraseology. I think band meetings should be held where responsible persons from the department who understand the question would explain the situation to the Indians themselves. It is because of this lack of understanding on the part of the Indians that the rumours get around and hurt everyone.