Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege involving the duties and responsibilities of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chevrier) and what I think is a violation of the responsibilities which he has. Section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights reads as follows:

The Minister of Justice shall-[DOT]

So it is not discretionary; he must do this.

-in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the governor in council, examine every proposed regulation submitted in draft form to the Clerk of the Privy Council pursuant to the Regulations Act and every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this part and he shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.

Then there are regulations pursuant to that section which merely set out more intricate machinery as to how this should be done; it involves a certificate to be signed by the deputy minister, and so on, but I do not think that is germane to this point at the moment.

On June 7 of this year, more than six months ago, I introduced in this house Bill No. C-71. The bill was introduced and given first reading, and so far-and I checked this with the office of the Clerk of the House of Commons this morning at about twenty or twenty five minutes after nine o'clock-that bill has not been returned from the Department of Justice with any indication on it that it has been examined.

During the last session, in fact on February 1, I raised a similar question of privilege and founded upon it a motion, which is to be found at page 3329 of Hansard for February 1 last, that the standing committee on privileges and elections be authorized and instructed to inquire into and study the responsibilities attendant upon the Minister of Justice by virtue of section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights and whether those responsibilities were properly carried out with respect to Bill C-14, an act respecting Indians. No decision

was taken on that motion. The matter was taken under advisement and the house prorogued, or parliament was dissolved, before an opportunity was accorded the Speaker to rule on it.

There are some interesting comments with respect to that question of privilege reported at page 3330 of Hansard. For example, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said:

Mr. Speaker, this appears to us to be a matter of pretty serious import-

Then there is an interjection by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who said:

A breach of the law; that is all.

Then the hon. member for Laurier continued:

-more particularly because of the fact that the bill has been held up from October 1 until now, and my suggestion to you, sir, is that this matter be taken under advisement.

Then there is the following comment by the then hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin):

Particularly because of the violation of the act by the Minister of Justice.

Precisely the same situation as this arose with respect to Bill No. C-71, and this is even worse because it is a longer period of time, more than six and a half months.

Mr. Knowles:

What did the Secretary of State have to say?

Mr. Howard:

Unfortunately the Secretary of State was particularly silent when this matter was raised on February 1. I contend that the Minister of Justice has not fulfilled his obligation under the bill of rights with respect to Bill No. C-71. It is immaterial at this stage whether or not, as was done on June 7, the Speaker expresses any thought about the bill, because the measure has been introduced into the House of Commons and given first reading. I remind hon. members of the provisions of section 3 of the bill of rights where the expression is used: "and every bill introduced in, or presented to, the House of Commons", which makes it even broader.

I should like to move a motion founded on this question of privilege, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), namely:

That this house expresses its regret that the Minister of Justice has not fulfilled his obligation pursuant to the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Inquiries of the Ministry

Mr. Speaker:

I have to decide whether or not there is a question of privilege. I should like to say in this connection first of all that it appears to me that this is rather in the nature of a grievance against the conduct of a minister with regard to action which has or has not been taken. If it is desired to condemn the action of the Minister of Justice it should be done in the form of a substantive motion requiring notice. In this connection I would refer the hon. member to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 127, paragraph 2, and to Bourinot at page 301.

In the circumstances it seems to me that the motion is in the nature of a grievance and not a prima facie case of privilege. Therefore I regret I cannot accept the motion.

Mr. Howard:

I wonder if I could ask the unanimous consent of the house to my moving it as a substantive motion.

No.

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):

I have not looked into this matter recently, although I did receive some representations from the officers of the department, and I wonder-

Mr. Speaker:

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of Justice, but I have given a ruling and I suggest we now proceed with the business before the house.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):

I address a direct question to the Minister of Finance with reference to what has been described by Mr. Kierans and others as the discriminatory policies directed against foreign investors. Is the minister in a position to advice or at least give some hope that these policies he brought into effect, which resulted, to use an expression in one editorial, in biting the hand that feeds Canada and the commission of a historic blunder on Canada's part, will be withdrawn?

Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):

No, Mr. Speaker, they will not be withdrawn.

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the substantial

budget deficits that were announced yesterday, will the minister have some better plans for us in the new session?

Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):

I am afraid I did not hear the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Aiken:

I asked the minister, in view of the substantial budget deficits that were announced yesterday, will he have some better plans for parliament in the new session?