Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, I have here the report of an accident involving an R.C.A.F. Voodoo aircraft and a T.C.A. Viscount, which occurred at Bagotville on October 10, 1962. This report is rather lengthy; it covers three pages. May I ask permission to put it on record?

Mr. Speaker:

The minister would like to make a report on an air collision which occurred at Bagotville. Does the house agree to have that report put into Hansard?

Agreed.

Mr. Sevigny:

On October 11, 1962, my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, reported to the house that, on the previous evening, an accident had occurred at Bagotville which involved a Voodoo R.C.A.F. aircraft and a T.C.A. Viscount.

At that time he stated that a complete report would be made when the official board of inquiry had been completed.

The board of inquiry has been completed on this accident and reveals that the crash occurred as a result of the aerodrome control officer issuing take-off clearance to the Voodoo aircraft before the Viscount was clear of the runway in use.

The circumstances which led to the accident are as follows. As the T.C.A. Viscount landed at 7.49 p.m., clearance was given to the R.C.A.F. Voodoo to line up on the runway and hold its position. After the Viscount had landed, the aerodrome controller cleared it to proceed to the terminal building via the first intersection. The Viscount was observed by the controller to commence a turn to the left at the first intersection. He then gave take-off clearance to the Voodoo but, at this point, his attention was momentarily diverted to other traffic on the airfield. When the controller next observed the Viscount, he saw

that it had not, in fact, completed the turn off at the first intersection and had continued on down the runway to the next intersection.

After being given clearance to taxi onto the runway, the pilot of the Voodoo lined up at the take-off position and observed the Viscount commence a turn to the left before he received take-off clearance. He then applied take-off power and checked his instruments before releasing the brakes. After cutting in his afterburners during the take-off run he again checked his instruments and then as he looked up he saw the tail of the Viscount immediately in front of him. As he had just gained flying speed and was about to retract the undercarriage, he pulled back on the control column as hard as he could in an attempt to avoid a collision. The pilot then heard a loud crash and ripping sound and the Voodoo aircraft started to go out of control. He managed to gain sufficient altitude with his disabled aircraft to enable a successful ejection.

The investigation revealed that the Voodoo struck the tail section of the Viscount just as the Viscount was commencing its turn off runway. The entire roof of the Viscount was torn out by the Voodoo undercarriage but the wheel travelled through the cabin between the seats missing the majority of the passengers. The two exceptions were the stewardess who was killed instantly and a passenger who was seriously injured at the time and subsequently died.

To attempt to eliminate the possibility of further accidents of this nature, steps have been taken to ensure that all aircraft are well clear of the runway in use before a departing aircraft is cleared for take-off.

Claims by persons who suffered injury or loss in this unfortunate accident have been made and settlements are being negotiated at present-but until such time as the negotiations are brought to a successful conclusion or adjudicated upon by the proper court, it would not be in the interests of either the claimants or the crown to make a statement concerning legal responsibility for this accident.

Question of Privilege PRIVILEGE

Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):

I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to state the facts immediately.

It would seem that some people want to impede members in the accomplishment of their duties, or at least to practice obstruction concerning the questions they ask. Thus, some time ago I inserted a question on the order paper in which I asked what was the length of service with the C.N.R., the qualifications and the experience of the 28 senior officers which I named one after the other. The reply was as follows:

The policy of the management on the questions which have been asked has been explained many times-

It was pointed out that:

-it is not the management's policy to supply information from confidential files on officials or employees; this policy has met with the approval of the sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping. Appointments are the result of judicious appraisal of the competence and experience of incumbents.

The information I was seeking in connection with the 28 officers of the C.N.R. is not privileged information; it only deals with their length of service, qualifications and experience. Yet the answer was that it was not customary to give such information. That is why I am requesting the reinstatement of my question on the order paper so that the house may be given an informative answer.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. If the hon. member looks up the rules, he will notice that his point of privilege is not actually what it purports to be. If he is not satisfied with the answer, as I said the other day, there may be grounds for grievance, and the hon. member will have an opportunity to submit such grievance to the house in due time. Furthermore, and this has been stated time after time, a member has no right to comment on the nature of the answer given him.

Therefore, his question of privilege was out of order-

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker:

Order. As for his request to put back his question on the order paper, I must ask him to study the rules of the house and most particularly Beauchesne's citation 171, I think, to the effect that questions cannot be repeated.

fMr. Sevigny.]

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It is not only about that question; the same goes for all questions we ask about the Canadian National Railways company. We can never obtain an adequate answer.

Mr. Speaker:

Order. Once again-

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Speaker, if you will kindly allow me to complete my remarks-

Mr. Speaker:

Order. The hon. member cannot insist. He understands the rules as well as the others, and 1 would refer him to Beauchesne's citation 181, which can be found at the bottom of page 153, and which reads as follows: "A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal." Therefore, the hon. member cannot rise on a question of privilege and, as I indicated to him a moment ago-and I hope that will be the end of the discussion-if he has any grievances to submit to the house, he will have the opportunity of doing so in due course, but he cannot do so now.

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order concerning a ruling you made on one of my questions.

I had referred to section 3 of citation 181 of Beauchesne. According to Beauchesne, it is understood that a minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, because of the answer given by the Minister of Transport to a question appearing in my name on the order paper and which reads as follows:

-the management of the Canadian National Railways informs us that the information concerning that question was given at the hearings of the sessional committee on railways, airlines and shipping.

I think paragraph 2 of citation 181 in Beauchesne would apply better in this case than paragraph 3-

Mr. Speaker:

Order. Would the hon. member please refer to paragraph 3. 1 have given my ruling and he cannot question it.

Mr. Gregoire:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. Speaker:

And I will indicate to him once and for all that the practice followed in this house is in keeping with paragraph 3 of citation 181 in Beauchesne. Now-