1909-12-10

[Stage Direction]
Report of the imperial defence conference. with additional papers relating to Australia and New Zealand.-Mr. Brodeur. He said: This is the same document as the one that was brought down a few days ago, except the reports of the proceedings of the conference of Australia and New Zealand with the admiralty, which were not included, but which were asked for by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Samuel S. Sharpe), and the hon. member for North Toronto (Hon. Geo. E. Foster).

Mr.  E. N.@: LEWIS (West Huron) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 66), to
amend the Railway Act. He said:	Mr. Speaker, the Bill which I wish to introduce is almost identical with the Bill which I introduced last year, with this exception, that I have added a clause providing that all railways doing business in Canada after the first of July, 1910, shall report to the Dominion government the names and employment of all men in their employ who work over 12 hours on any day, or an aggregate of 84 hours in any week. The Bill jirovides that this clause shall apply only to trainmen, des-patchers, operators, and any others who have anything to do with the management or running of trains. The object of this- and I believe it will be welcomed by the railways-is to assist in the prevention of a great many accidents which are due to the lengthy hours despatchers and others are sometimes employed. I have had a number of complaints from different men of the long hours they have to work: but you can readily understand that if these complaints were looked into by the railway authorities, the men who make the complaints might be militated against by their employers, whereas if the railways are obliged to make a report, that is public property. I feel much more strongly than I did'last year, that there should be a public official representing the people of Canada, not the railway corporations or the municipalities, but the man of moderate means who has a grievance which he wishes to lay before the Railway Commission and is not in a position to do so on his own behalf. Since I introduced the Bill of last year, a number of cases have been brought to my attention in which an official of that kind would have been of great service to the people of Canada. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will hand into 'Hansard' the remarks which I made in introducing the Bill of last session.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am afraid that will be exceeding the custom of the House.


Mr. LEWIS.: Then, with your permission, I will refer hon. members to "the page of 'Hansard' in which those remarks appear, so that any who desire to read the facts which I laid before the House last year may do so. They are on page 3362, on March 26, 1909.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That when this House adjourns on Friday, the 17th instant, it stands adjourned to Wednesday, the 12th January next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: That a special committee of seven members be appointed, with instructions to carefully examine the rules of the House, to report what changes in their opinion might be adopted with the view to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business; and that the said committee be composed of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Brodeur, Mr. Pugsley, Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Borden, Mr. Haggart (Lanark), and Mr. Taylor (Leeds).


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Will the right hon. gentleman allow that to stand until Monday as I had not noticed it in the Votes and Proceedings.
Motion allowed to stand.



WATER CARRIAGE OF GOODS.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved second reading of Bill (No. 25) respecting the water carriage of goods. He said: The most important feature of the Bill is that concerning a clause which is to be found in many Bills of lading, providing that the ship owners will not be liable in cases of fault or negligence on their part. This contracting out of liability seems to me absolutely contrary to the principles of our laws. Some years ago we passed legislation preventing railway companies from doing this and declaring that any such clause would be considered illegal. I may say that similar legislation to the one we are now introducing has been passed in Australia and is also in force in the United .States, and the present Bill is taken mostly from the provisions of that passed by the Australian parliament. Some of its provisions are also in conformity with those of the Bill passed in the United States. True no such legislation exists in England, but the tendency at least in this country has been to disregard as much as possible the clauses in Bills of lading I have referred to. It ought not to be necessary for me to dwell at any length on the principle of the Bill. It is one which certainly ought to commend itself to the favourable consideration of this House. Let me draw attention to one of the clauses in the Bill of lading of a prominent shipping line:-
It is further expressly agreed that the goods named herein are shipped and carried at the sole risk of the shipper or owner thereof, and that the ship owner shall in no case be responsible for any loss or damage thereof, or in any wise relating thereto, whether such loss and damage arise, defects or insufficiency, either before or after shipment, in the hull of the said steamer, or in her machinery, or boilers or refrigerating chambers,- machinery or in any part of the refrigerating apparatus, or in any material, or the supply or use thereof used in the process of refrigeration, and whether such loss Mr. LEWIS.
or damage however arising, be caused by the negligence, default, error of judgment of the pilot, master, officers, engineers, mariners, refrigerating engineers, or other servants of the ship owner or persons for whom they are responsible or by negligence in stowage.
Here is another clause:-
Hook marks or injury from hooks, stowage or contact with or smell or evaporation from any other goods or from live stock or their excretion, however caused.
*
In this case it is provided also that there shall be no liability. It is provided also that if the goods should be delivered to some , other person than the ones mentioned as being those to whose order the goods should be delivered, there will be no liability. I may say, however, to the credit of the ship owners as a rule that they do not take advantage of those extraordinary provisions. But possibly in some cases some companies, not quite so reputable, might not fail to take advantage of them. And it is possible that a company, who would be absolutely responsible in ordinary cases for the negligence of its officers and servants, might contract itself out of any liability arising from such negligence. Therefore it seems to me that we should provide that such clauses in a Bill of lading should be absolute illegal. This is the law which exists in Australia and the United States. I might add that in the province of Quebec, there is in its Civil Code a proviso almost similar to the one I am now introducing. That provision has been working satisfactorily and is in accord also with section 284 of the Railway Act. That section says:-
The company, shall, according to its powers:
(b) Furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying, unloading and delivering of such traffic.
And subsection 7 of the same section says:
Every person aggrieved by any neglect or refusal of the company to comply with the requirements of this section, shall, subject to this Act, have an action therefor against the company, from wrhich action the company shall not be relieved by any notice, condition or declaration, if the damage arises from any negligence or omission of the company or of its servants.
Current jurisprudence also tends to declare that the responsibility for accidents, not only when negligence is established against the shipowner or carrier, but in other cases also is upon the carrier. That is, the onus probandi in such cases rests upon the person against whom the action in damages is taken. The general principle of law is that one is not responsible unless it be proven that the accident or damage is due to his thought, fault or negligence. But, while this principle may

have been, not only sound but applicable before the present industrial development, yet, under present conditions, as shown by cases recently decided by the Supreme Court, the onus probandi rests upon the person using the appliances which are the cause of the accident. For it is extremely difficult in ordinary cases for the person aggrieved to prove that the accident is due to the negligence of the carrier. The courts have been giving to that disposition of the law the most liberal interpretation and have held the carrier responsible, not only when negligence has been proven, but when the presumption of negligence has been more or less well established. Thus the tendency of the law is more and more in favour of holding responsible the persons or companies to whose care goods are entrusted for transportation. But, in the case of shipowners, the carriers go so far as to contract themselves out of their liability even for damages due to their own negligence or fault. This is certainly a step contrary to the ordinary principles of the law, ot, at least, of the jurisprudence that is now being established in this country. It seems necessary to guard against such contracts and to enact a provision to make it impossible for these parties^ to contract themselves out of these liabilities, and for that purpose to declare such conditions of the contract to be illegal. That is the main object of this Bill. I may say that a measure on this subject was introduced in the Senate two years ago and was fully discussed there. An opportunity was given for interested parties, shipowners and others, to be heard. The result of the Senate's deliberations was a Bill which is almost word for word the one now before the House. Last year this Bill was passed again by the Senate, but, unfortunately, it reached this House too late to be considered. I believe it came to us just at the end of the session, and, as some objection was taken to it, it could not be passed. This year, I thought I would take charge of the Bill and submit it to the favourable consideration of this House. I entirely agree with the work done by the Senate, and I am very glad to say that the work is a good guide for us in this case, and we could not do better than follow the principles which they accepted last year, and which I am sure they will accent this year also. The other day we received in the department a letter from a shipowner who asked to be heard on the subject of this Bill. I think it is only fair that an opportunity for hearing should be afforded to those interested, and with that view, if the Bill passes its second reading, I intend to propose that it be referred to the Committee on Marine and Fisheries for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Brodeur, Bill was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["My hon. friend did not understand me to say that, I said that the $10,000 voted last year had been expended. It is for the probable increase of work in the coming year that we are asking for this vote.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, 1 desire to ask a question of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). I would like to know when the report presented by the Fisheries Commission that sat in Manitoba and the Northwest a little while ago will be brought before the House. I placed a question on the Order Paper, and in answer to that question the minister said that the report would be brought down as soon as it came into his hands. I understand that the report was placed in his hands about ten days ago, and I am anxious to see it.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I received that report last week and gave instructions to have it sent to the printers at once to be printed, in order to lay it before the House.


Glenlyon Campbell: When may we expect it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In a few days, I hope. As soon as it is printed, I will bring it down.



Robert Laird Borden: I desire to direct the attention of the Prime .Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the very great delay in having the documents connected with the resignation of Mr. Lumsden laid before the House in printed form, and so made available for all the members. I repeat what I have already said in that regard-that, considering the importance of these documents, considering that they relate to a matter connected with the expenditure of $150,000,000, and $200,000,000, the government ought to have laid these documents in printed form upon the table of the House on the very first day of the session. Instead of that, there was delay until they could be moved for, and since they were moved for there has been the additional unnecessary delay of waiting for them to be printed while the House is sitting. I moved for the papers at once, and they w'ere ordered to be printed almost as soon as they were brought down. It is now a little more than four weeks since the session opened, and these papers are not yet available. The answer of the Prime Minister to representations on

this subject has been thairthe printing of these papers is within the power and control of this House. The House does not do its own printing, but resorts to a department of the government to have its printing done. The House has done all it could do in connection with the matter by ordering that the papers shall be printed. Yet most extraordinary and unusual delay has taken place so that we shall not have these documents available for any intelligent work until two months after the opening of the session. I think that that is a very regrettable state of affairs. If delays of this kind unnecessarily prolong the session upon which we have entered, I desire to say in advance that it is not the fault of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, but it is the fault of those who are responsible for the administration of affairs, and who have lamentably failed in their duty in that regard.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-IMPURE WATER ON PASSENGER TRAINS.
Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) to the quality of the water supplied ' to the Intercolonial railway at Montreal, which is dangerous to the life and health of passengers travelling on its trains. Montreal is suffering from a very severe epidemic of typhoid fever, and the water supply of the city is without doubt, and is acknowledged to be, a source of danger. The milk of that city is also said to be contaminated, and the contamination may properly be traced to the water. In travelling on that train I made inquiries in the dining caT, where the water came from, and I was told by those in charge that the water tank was filled from the water service of the city of Montreal. Now, if the citizens of Montreal are willing to put up with a municipal council that quenches their thirst on poisonous fluid, that is no reason why an innocent traveller on the Intercolonial should suffer in his health or in his life from this contaminated water. 1 am not talking of unrealities, but of a sad and actual reality. Many cases of typhoid have been contracted in this way from the impure water served to travellers. The Intercolonial is not the only railway that has been asked to supply its passengers with harmless water, and there has been more than one case where an order to give pure water has not been fully complied with, and when it has been found-I am not now referring to the Intercolonial-that the dining cars were furnished with pure water, while the ordinary passengers' lavatories and washrooms were supplied with impure water. Now it is as dangerous for a man to clean his teeth with water Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
loaded with typhoid bacillus as it is to drink typhoid water. Many a man is carried to his death by merely having cleaned his teeth by water full of typhoid bacillus. A case of typhoid contracted on a railway between Montreal and Quebec or between Montreal and Hamilton may not develop for a week or two, perhaps in Cape Breton or perhaps in Vancouver, and the victim wonders where he contracted the typhoid. To show that I am not an alarmist, I want to read a quotation from Thursday's Montreal ' Star ':
The typhoid situation is now serious.
Hospitals are too full to accommodate all fever patients who apply.
The following is the record of cases at the leading hospitals to-day:-
Royal Victoria Hospital	 66
General Hospital	 46
Western Hospital	 20
Notre Dame	 22
Since this was published I find by the 1 Star ' of yesterday and the ' Star ' of today that the epidemic is growing worse and worse. People are told to boil the water. Well, that is a straw in catching at which many a man drowns. Drinking boiled water is safe, but eating off dishes and with spoons, knives and forks that have been washed with unboiled water, though the water may be warm, still renders one liable to contract the disease. I am not here pleading for the citizens of Montreal, they have put up with contaminated water for many years; but I am pleading for the unsuspecting traveller who, when he sees the innocent looking water supplied in the dining car, thinks he is drinking the pure fluid, whereas he is frequently drinking disease and in many cases death. This is an easy thing to remedy, and it is only a just thing to ask; and I am sure it will only be necessary to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to this matter to have the danger removed so far as the Intercolonial is concerned. But I am sure a complete remedy will not be found unless there is a thorough investigation made and a thorough remedy applied, because the average railway servant and the average individual do not comprehend the danger of drinking typhoid water. I do not know that I have any right to complain on behalf of other railways, but there is no harm in drawing their attention to the fact that many of them are filling their tanks to supply their passengers with the vile water supply of Montreal.


Mr. GRAHAM.: The question my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the House is certainly a very important one, particularly as travellers on the Intercolonial are only allowed to drink water. On the other railways they can dilute the water if they like, and perhaps destroy the

microbes. I thank my hon. friend for having called my attention to this matter, and I will immediately make an investigation.


REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Mr. A. MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: I desire to. offer for the consideration of the House an amendment to the motion to go into Supply. The amendment only affirms a principle laid down in the rules of the House which the House has followed in the past, and which it is well to conserve for future use. It will be remembered that on the first of the present month I called the attention of the hon. the First Minister to the position that he then and still holds in occupying the two seats of Quebec East and the city of Ottawa. I asked at that time for your ruling as to whether the right hon. gentleman, in continuing to hold the dual position as representative of these two seats, yas committing a breach of the rules of the House. The following day you ruled that the right hon. the First Minister was not committing such a breach of privilege. I am quite prepared to admit, as I do by the amendment in my hand, that so far as your ruling on that point is concerned, the House can not question it. I have no recourse and consequently I do not purpose by this amendment to reverse the ruling which was given by Mr. Speaker on the 2nd of December last. I desire, however, that my words in that regard shall not be misconstrued. I wish to state that I admit only that we are bound by the conclusion reached by Mr. Speaker in relation to this particular case/ I do not wish to be understood as saying that we are any further bound. We have concluded in the present case that the right hon. the First Minister is not committing a breach of privilege and therefore, by reason of the fact that we are so concluded by the rule of the House, I cannot now and do not now challenge that ruling. But, Sir, in the course of the reasoning by which you arrived at that conclusion, certain principles were stated which I think were erroneously stated, and which I think it is to the advantage of the House to reaffirm. In the course of that ruling it was stated, among other things, that sessional orders of the House of Commons of Great Britain and Ireland such as were in force on the 1st day of July, 1867, were not within the meaning of the word ' rules ' as used in Rule 1 of the House of Commons of Canada. That, I think, was an error and, to reaffirm what I said before, while we are concluded as to the application, correctly or incorrectly, of that rule in the present instance, we are in no way precluded from the use and enjoyment of the rule in time to come. That is to say,
while it may or may not be misconstrued in an individual case, it still is of use in this House and its reaffirmation under the present circumstances is advisable. I therefore feel that before going any further I should offer to the House the amendment to the motion for Supply which I propose to move. It is as follows:
That in the judgment of this House, sessional orders of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in force on the first day of July, 1867, are within the meaning of the words ' rules, usages and forms of proceedings,' as contained in rule 1 of the rules of the House of Commons of Canada.
In supporting that amendment, I desire first of all to refer to the use of the word ' rules ' and the word ' orders ' in the standard authority of this House, Sir John Bourinot's work on parliamentary procedure. It will be found by a reference to Bourinot at pages 303-4-5-6 and 7, that the words ' rule ' and ' order ' are used practically interchangeably; no distinction is drawn between' them, sometimes the word ' rule ' is used, sometimes the word ' order,' each in reference to the same subject, each in denomination of the same distinctive idea. There is no distinction drawn, the one means the other, and the other means the one, in so far as they both are used to refer to regulations and proceedings in the House of Commons. I do not think it necessary to quote individual sentences from Bourinot. A reference to the pages I have cited will clearly show any member that no distinction is drawn between the two words.
Now then, is there any distinction under the English practice? I desire in this case to be more specific, because fortunately the English authorities on this question are very clear, and I affirm that it is absolutely impossible for any hon. gentleman, approaching this subject in a reasonable attitude, to come to any other conclusion than that sessional orders and all orders that form the basis of procedure, or the regulation of procedure, are included within the meaning of the word ' rules.' I refer now to Redlich on the procedure of the House of Commons, volume 2, at page 5, and I regret that in order to make myself perfectly clear it will be necessary for me to read a considerable part of what that authority says on this subject. Perhaps, that it may be grasped more clearly, I should indicate the course of his reasoning. He urges that there are three classes of orders, all embraced within the meaning of the word ' rule.' There are, first of all, standing orders; secondly, sessional orders, and thirdly, another class which are not denominated correctly by either of the other terms and which are not given in their

promulgation in the first instance, either short or long duration. This third class of orders, it will be seen, are embraced within the meaning of the word ' rule.' In the opening of that argument Redlich draws a distinction between the word ' order ' as used in the specific instance in reference to a specific case and the word ' order ' as properly termed, a regulation which has an abstract reference. He says the word ' order ' is used in two senses. It might mean a concrete direction as to what is to be done in a particular case or it might describe an abstract formulation of a rule as to the business of the House. In the first sense, an order is the commonest act of the House of Commons, the motive power of all its actual, positive work. We have nothing to do with orders of the House in this sense, we are only concerned with orders which are abstract regulations. As to what orders are .abstract regulations, he says:
The mark which distinguishes orders of the second kind is their laying down general rules which are conceived as more or less permanent. Such orders, each of which is at first quite independent and revocable at any moment, after the ground they cover has reached a certain extent, constitute a connected body of formulated law upon matters of procedure. As we have already seen, from the beginning of the 17th century the House of Commons has shown considerable activity iu this kind of autonomous legislation. In the course of time the constant repetition of certain well-tried orders, as opposed to special, temporary regulations, has led to the recognition of standing orders as a separate class of rules. Standing orders are regulations which have been expressly declared to be intended to hind all future parliaments, although the right is reserved of repealing them at any future time by a simple decision of the House.
In addition to the standing orders of a second category of procedure rules known as sessional orders has grown up.
I wish to repeat that sentence, and when I do so every member will see that it settles the whole point in controversy.
In addition to the standing orders a second category of procedure rules known as sessional orders has grown up.
So how aie sessional orders to be anything else than procedure rules?
These comprise regulations which the House expressly renews at the beginning of each session, making the principles contained in them binding for the duration of its currency. The number of sessional orders has never been large, and several of them by constant repetition, session after session, have practically become standing orders. There are also a number of rules not belonging to either of the foregoing classes, never expressly endowed with either short or long duration, which by virtue of continuous practice, have acquired the force of customary law. For more than Mr. MEIGHEN.
50 years it has been usual for the procedure, regulations and forms of all three kinds to be collected from time to time in a hand-hook under the editorship of the Clerk of the House for the time being; it is laid by the Speaker on the table of the House, and may, therefore, be regarded as an official statement.
So that' these three classes of procedure rules, standing orders, sessional orders and the other class of orders, constitute themselves with nothing else the procedure rules of the House of Commons of England. One class is just as much a portion of the procedure rules as another. They are all embodied in what is known as the official statement binding on the House of Commons of England. Now, I ask the hon. members of this House, by what authority we can dismember that official statement and say that one class only is a procedure rule and the other is not? By what authority can we tear limb from limb what is expressly laid down as the basis, and the comprehensive precise basis of. the procedure rules of the House of Commons of England? It is a matter of some importance that we get the whole benefit of our rules; that we be not robbed at any time of the real benefit of the rules of our House. If it is to be laid down that sessional orders are not included in the word 'rules' it may be a more serious matter for this House than perhaps we would at first anticipate. By the simple means of passing rule I of the rules_ of this House the Commons of Canada gained by one stroke the whole advantage _ of centuries of experience of the British House of Commons. They acquired the advantage of all the rules that that House had got together throughout centuries of the hardest experience, just such experience as we otherwise would have had to undergo. It is therefore I conceive, of great importance that we should not lightly throw away the benefit of any of our rules, more particularly that salutary rule I of this House. Now, Sir, what would result if this House were to lose the benefit of rule I? What would be the result if this House for all time were to be guided by the rule that sessional orders were not rules of the British House. I would like any han. gentleman in this House to show me by what authority for nine years in the House of Commons strangers were kept out of this House at the instance of Mr. Speaker, if not by virtue of a sessional order of the House of Commons of England. I would like any hon. member to show me by what authority even up to the present day strangers can be kent from blocking the thoroughfares to this House if not by the authority of a sessional order of the House of Commons of England. I would like also any hon. gentleman to tell me by what, regulations we are governed in the printing of our Votes and Proceedings if we do not

have the benefit of sessional orders that were in force in England on the 1st of July, 1867. And the most distinct and the most apparent loss we suffer is in respect to the very dilemma that we are placed in as to which I -put the question to Mr. Speaker on December 1st last-the situation that by virtue of having lost sessional orders we find ourselves in the absurd position of being made to say for all time any hon. member may sit for one, for two or for twenty seats, throughout the whole period of a parliament in this country. I do not need to go any further. I only purpose making such remarks as I conceive to be absolutely necessary to make clear that we must reaffirm what I think was misconstrued in the course of the reasoning by which the decision of December 2nd was arrived at. I regret it was so arrived at but we are bound by it and I bow with respect to that decision. However, let us not be bound by the reasoning that led to it; let us not lose the benefit of the salutary position that this House has 'always enjoyed, let us reaffirm it to-day. I therefore beg to move seconded by Mr. Marshall:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply, but that it be resolved-
That in the judgment of this House sessional orders of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in force on the 1st day of July, 1867, are within the meaning of the words ' rules, usages, and forms of proceeding ' as contained in rule I of the rules of the House of Commons of Canada.


Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice.) Mr. Speaker, the question which has been raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) is one which properly would have been brought up upon the pronouncing of your ruling of a week ago if an appeal had thereupon been taken from the chair and the question had been presented whether or no the chair should be sustained. For some reason that course was not taken. I cannot undertake to guess whv that was not done. One would have supposed that to be the ordinary, the proper and the regular course to have taken under such circumstances. But the whole manner in,which this question is presented to the House for consideration seems of unusual character. It will be remembered that it was brought up originally as a question of privilege and that in spite of your ruling that it did not properly so arise, the hon. gentleman persisted in pressing the point and discussing it as a matter of privilege.


Arthur Meighen: Excuse me. If the Minister of Justice will refer to 'Hansard' he will find that Mr. Speaker made no such ruling as he has now stated to the House the Speaker did make.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: If the hon. gentleman refers to 'Hansard' I think he will find that my statement is absolutely and literally correct,, but whether or no that is the case is of little consequence. The matter was brought up in the manner I have described, and the hon. the Speaker took time to consider his ruling in regard to it, and whatever may have been the form in which the question was presented for his consideration he considered it upon its merits and he pronounced his best judgment in regard to it. That judgment stands unquestioned; there was no challenge of it whatever. It was received in the silence and by the acquiescence of this House, and the House upon its being pronounced proceeded at once to other business. Now, the question is renewed in the form of an amendment to the motion to go into supply, and it is so renewed notwithstanding that upon the Order Paper there is a government notice of a motion for a committee to examine carefully the rules of the House and to report what changes in their opinion might be adopted with a view to simplify, accelerate and expedite its business, and notwithstanding the fact also that legislation to deal with this very subject has been introduced to this House and stands in the shape of Bill (No. 60) upon the Public Bills and Orders. And if any one wished to take exception to the course which has been pursued in making this motion to-day I venture to think, Mr. Speaker, that one so objecting would have been entitled to your ruling in his favour if he took the position that the course which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) has taken to-day was entirely out of order, because it deals solely and only with the subject matter of a Bill already upon the Order Paper and standing for consideration. But however irregular the course may be, which is taken to bring forward this question, the question might quite as well be dealt with now as at any time; and I venture to submit, Mr. Speaker, that the ruling you pronounced on this subject on the 2nd of December is in every respect correct and is one which ought to be supported and not overturned by the action of this House. The whole question is within a very narrow limit. I cannot pretend, and I do not want any one to suppose that I pretend, to think myself in the least degree a parliamentary authority, or to speak in the light of experience or of knowledge other than any one can have from reading our rules on the subject; and I want to speak of the matter solely and entirely in view of the language of that rule. I start from the position which I suppose is common ground that this is a case not expressly provided for in our parliamentary rules on the subject. Unless that common ground exists there is no room for

discussion at all. But assuming it to be a case not provided for in our existing rules, the question then narrows itself to whether or not the practice followed in England on the subiect is introduced into this country bv the first of our general rules, which provides for such cases as are not exnresslv mentioned here. That rule prescribes that in cases not provided for the rules, usages and forms of proceeding of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom which were in force on the first day of July, 1867, shall be followed/
Now, the first thing that any one would think of, it seems to me, in entering upon an inquiry upon this subject would be whether or not there was in force on the first of July, 1867, a rule of this character in England. You called attention, Sir, to that feature of the case in the considered ruling which you delivered on the 2nd of December inst. I understood the reference which you made in that ruling to the question whether or not the imperial parliament was then in session to be by way of illustrating the temporary character of the sessional orders which were under discussion by you. In some quarters I have seen during the last week criticisms of the ruling which you then pronounced upon the ground that is was based on that technical consideration. I certainly did not so understand it; and, reading it, I fail to see bow any one could think that the consideration of whether or not the sessional order in England was in force on the first of July, 1867, was in any degree the foundation of Mr. Speaker's decision in this House a week ago. But the fact that that inquiry necessarily falls to be made is of the utmost significance. It shows at once that the sessional order which is passed at the beginning of the session and which expires with the session is of temporary character, and is not at all on the same footing as a general parliamentary rule which endures from session to session and from parliament to parliament until it is revoked or varied. Our own rule calls attention in the most distinct manner to that very difference. In its opening statement that ' in all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders,' three different things are collated: provided for hereinafter is one; provided for by sessional orders is another: provided for bv other orders is a third. Those three different things are put in marked contra-distinction to the ' rules, usrgi s and forms of proceeding' which immediately afterwards are mentioned. The very wording of our general rule No. 1 points in the most distinct manner to the fact that there is some difference between a general rule, usage, or form of proceeding; and a sessional order. If one looks at Bourinot on the subject, one finds immediately what is the distinctive and Mr. AYLESWORTH.
essential character of a sessional order. At page 309, paragraph 4, he deals with sessional orders and resolutions, and he says, to read three sentences:
The House passes, in the course of every session, certain orders or resolutions, which are intended to have only a temporary effect on its proceedings, or to regulate the business of the' session. These orders generally relate to the times of adjournment, the arrangement of business, or the internal economy of the House, or to the presentation of certain papers in subsequent sessions. Up to the session of 1876, certain resolutions relative to the offer of money were formally proposed and agreed to at the commencement of every session, but when the rules were revised that year, these resolutions were placed among the permanent orders.
Does not every word of that mark the distinction between a mere sessional order, a temporary thing that may or may not apply to any subsequent session, and something which takes the place of a general rule or parliamentary practice which continues in force by reason of its own strength until it is either revoked, amended or in some way got rid of? The sessional order expires with the session. For instance, the resolution which from time to time we see passed as to the order of business on a Wednesday or on a Monday, as the session goes on towards its end; the resolution that the House shall have forenoon sessions or that it shall sit on Saturday-things of that sort are of an ephemeral character, I might almost say -are mere orders or resolutions for the doing of business in that particular session, and unless repeated have of course no force or effect in any subsequent session. And so, Mr. Speaker, I venture to think that your reference to the fact that it had not been made to appear to you whether or not the British House of Commons was in session on the first of July, 1867, was a very significant and pregnant reference. If the House was not in session on that day, the whole question falls to the ground without more ado There could not be any sessional order in force on that day, and there is no need to inquire further. If the House was in session on that day, the matter could not be quite disposed of on that ground, and accordingly you did not propose to dispose of it on that ground; but you faced the question squarely on the assumption that the House of Commons was in session' on the first of July, 1867, and you proceeded to inquire whether or not on that assumption a sessional order of the House of Commons which may have been passed for the session of 1867 could be held to have been introduced into this country by our rules.
Assuming then that a sessional order upon the subject of a member entitled to one or the other of two or more seats, being required within any limit of time to select which of those seats he would

hold-assuming that a sessional order upon that subject was passed by the British House of Commons in the session of 1867, and that the British House of Commons was in fact in session upon the 1st of July, 1867, the question is simply whether or not, under the language of our general rule, such a sessional, temporary, evanescent order was introduced into the practice of this parliament. What is the language of rule 1? According to it, the things which were introduced into the present practice of this parliament are not the sessional orders, but the rules, usages and forms of proceeding of the English House of Commons as they stood on the 1st of July, 1867. Under which one of these three heads' does a sessional order fall? Is it a rule, a usage or a form of proceeding? I confess that I awaited with considerable interest the discussion of this matter by the hon. gentleman, to know under which of those three heads he would contend a sessional order was included. He could scarcely argue that it was a mere form of proceeding. The term ' form of proceeding ' surely means something entirely different. I had thought that possibly his argument would have been that it was included under the word ' usage'. That word i3, perhaps, of somewhat elastic meaning, but I should suppose it includes something which was not put into any form of words, some such thing as the ancient traditional usage or custom which every member of the House of Commons in this country or in England exercises, if he pleases, to sit in his seat with his hat on notwithstanding that the House is in session	and the
Sneaker in the chair, or the usage which exists in England, but not here, of taking a particular point of order seated and with the hat on. Usages of that kind, which Test on custom or tradition, cannot be described in any set form of words. It is not urged, however, that this question is governed by the introduction into this parliament of the usages of the British parliament, but the argument is that it falls under the phrase rules of the English House of Commons. But take the language of our rule 1 itself, and you will find the clearest and most distinct line of opposition and contrast drawn between the rules which are introduced and the sessional or other orders which are mentioned in the line before as things which govern cases not provided for expressly. The contrast is marked. The nature, the substance of the thing itself demonstrates that a sessional order is, as Bourinot points out, something very different from a permanent rule of the House which does not expire at prorogation but continues from session to session and from parliament to parliament. I certainly could not, in such light as I have on the subject, come to the con-42
elusion that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, given a week ago, was erroneous.


Mr. MADDIN.: I wish to say with regard to this question that so eminent an authority on parliamentary procedure as Redlich says, in Vol. 2, page 6, referring to rules of parliamentary procedure:
In addition to the standing orders, a second category of procedure rules, known as sessional orders, has grown up.
Can there be any doubt, in view of this high authority, that a sessional order is a parliamentary rule? The ordinary rules of the House and sessional orders are all rules of parliamentary procedure according to this eminent authority.
These comprise regulations which the House expressly renews at the beginning of each session, making the principles contained in them binding for the duration of its currency. The number of sessional orders has never been large, and several of them, by constant repetition, session after session, have practically become standing orders.
In a foot note which indicate those referred to are the following:
(1) Double election returns; (2) exclusion of peers from voting; (3) prohibition against interference of peers in elections; (4) bribery at elections; (5) tampering with witnesses; (6) false evidence given to the House or one of its committees; (7) direction to the police to keep the passages to the House clear; (8) regulations as to printing the votes and proceedings; (9) regulations as to printing the journal.
I wish to point out that if rule 1 of our orders were not so construed as to include the sessional and standing orders, this House has no authority to patrol and police its corridors. The only authority for our doing this is the sessional orders whicli were in force in England on the 1st day of July, 1867. We have followed those orders with regard to other matters heretofore, and it was only within recent years that we made rules regarding the printing of the Votes and Proceedings and regulations regarding the printing of the Journals. And it was only in recent years that we passed an Act dealing with false evidence given the House or one of its committees. Up to that time we had absolutely no authority in those matters except the sessional and standing orders in force in the British House of Commons on the 1st of July, 1867, and I submit, with all due deference to so eminent an authority as the Minister of Justice, that the sessional and standing orders enforced in England on the 1st of July, 1867, are rules to which this House, under rule 1, is subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I have very little to add to what has been said on this subject. The argument of my hon. friend the



Minister of Justice amounts simply to this, that in determining whether or not a rule of the British House of Commons is a rule within the meaning of the statute and of our standing orders, you must look, not to the language of the rule, but to the probable length of its duration. That is the test fixed by my hon. friend. The Minister of Justice contends .that it is not the character of the order that determines whether or not it is a rule, but the question whether or not it shall remain in force one, two or three sessions, or indefinitely. I need not appeal to lawyers,
T appeal to every layman ,as to whether that is common sense. Every one will realize that it is not. Neither, in my humble opinion, is it common law. Why, every one of the rules, every _ one of the standing orders of the imperial House or our House, with very few exceptions, might be put into the form of sessional orders and the business of that House carried on exactly as it is to-day. Yet the Minister of Justice, in that case, would stand in this House and seriously declare that the British House of Commons had no rules-for that would be the direct result of the argument he has addressed or the House this afternoon. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice this: If these sessional orders, so-called, were limited in their duration, not by one session but by three, four or five sessions, would he still contend that they were not Tules? I must confess that I am unable to apprehend the argument of the hon. gentleman. To say that the character of a rule is to be determined, not by its nature, but by the limit of its duration-well, if I might be permitted to use a common expression, I would say that that was the limit itself.
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice realize that some of the most important legislation in Great Britain to-day, the most vital, that in connection with the allimportant subject of the defence of the empire, is passed every session? And if any man asks him what the law of Great Brittain. is, for example, with regard to mutiny, would he tell that man that Great Britain has no law at all on that subject, because the Mutiny Act is limited in its duration and is passed every year? Yet that was exactly the argument of the hon. minister this afternoon. The Minister of Justice says that in his opinion the subject is not open to argument. I agree with him entirely, but in a sense absolutely the contrary of that which he had in mind.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have been a good many years in parliament, and I have realized by long experience that the law of parliament is far more difficult and far more intricate than my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie
(Mr. Meighen) seem to think. The law of parliament is full of difficulty; it is a maze in which it is very easy to lose one s way. Parliamentary authorities vary very much in their interpretation of the rules. It is a matter of notoriety that, in England, the best minds in parliament, the most eminent men who have ever sat there, have been found arguing on one side and on the other of questions that have arisen in connection with these matters. The whole law of parliament is, in its origin, the arbitrary regulations of the House of Commons-[DOT] and I use that word ' arbitrary ' in no offensive sense, rules which have been established from time to time. Some of these rules are temporary in their nature, while some are permanent. I confess that it is difficult not to realize that there is a distinction between a temporary and a permanent rule. The very names are different-some are called rules and others are called by other names, as usages, sessional orders, and so on. I apprehend that the average member of the House will have some difficulty in coming to the conclusion that Mr. Speaker, who gave to this question the best judgment he could bring to bear upon it, was wrong. But it would be difficult for the average member to say that the Minister of Justice, an authority in law. was wrong. And I may say that it would be difficult for any one to say that the hon. leader of the opposition, in his view of the matter, is wrong-he is a good lawyer. All this only shows the difficulty of coming to a conclusion on such a question. When this matter was brought to his attention, Mr. Speaker gave to it his best consideration and judgment. He reviewed the facts and authorities and came to the conclusion that there was no such rule of the House as was contended for by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie. I dare say it is difficult to say who was right and who was wrong. The ruling of Mr. Speaker may be right or it may be wrong. In fact, Mr. Speaker himself did not pretend to say finally that he was right, but intimated that the subject was full of difficulties and suggested what he thought would be the proper course for the House to follow. Let me call the attention of the House again to the ruling of Mr. Speaker:
My ruling is, therefore, that there is nothing in the rule of this House requiring a member who has been returned for more than one constituency to elect within any prescribed time for which of such constituencies he will sit. But, in my opinion, it is eminently desirable that some definite rule and practice on the subject should he established.
And he went on to say:
The House has a Standing Committee for the purpose of considering such questions- the Committee on Privileges and Elections- and I will suggest that at an early date the


Robert Laird Borden: matter should be considered by the House, or by the committee, with a view to the fixing of a definite period within which such election is to be made.
Now, I would ask hon. members on either side, is not that a most common sense dealing with such a question? Who is the member, on that side or on this, who will undertake to say that the argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice was wrong, or will undertake to say that the argument of the leader of the opposition was wrong, or that the ruling of Mr. Speaker was wrong? It seems to me that, under the circumstances, the suggestion made by Mr. Speaker was the right one- that the Committee on Privileges and Elections, which is composed of leading members of the House, those who are supposed to have the best knowledge of these questions, should deal with the subject. I think that every member will have no hesitation in saying that he would rather not take it upon himself to assert that Mr. Speaker was wrong in his ruling, and that the rule spoken of by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie was actually in existence. I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) not to press his motion to a division. I have placed on the Order Paper a notice of motion for a committee of the House to revise the rules of the House, and of course the subject now under discussion will be one of the matters to be looked into by this committee, should St be appointed.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: The question now before the House is certainly a most interesting one from at least two standpoints. If we consider for the moment the party, politically speaking, who have proposed the question, and the party, politically speaking, who oppose the question, we must surely think that the party in power have travelled a tremendously long distance since they prided themselves on being ' democrats to the hilt.' One would hardly believe it possible, even in this western hemisphere, with all the enterprise and progress that we claim, that the Reform party would, be the party found questioning the right of the people to secure representation in parliament. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) has referred to some matters on which we might agree. I suppose it will be admitted that we can agree on this, that no member sits in this House as the representative of Ottawa, or as the representative of Quebec, or any other locality, but that under our parliamentary system, inasmuch as all the people cannot assemble within the halls of parliament, the country is divided into certain districts, each one of which sends a representative to Ottawa to represent, not that district, but the whole people of Canada. Therefore, if this be true-and I hesi-421
tate not to say will not be questioned as a matter of law-it follows that every person in Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is deprived of his proper representation in this House when, although the law says that there shall be 221 representatives, the Prime Minister says there shall be only 220. Now, we come to consider this case thoroughly understanding that, from some cause or other, _ the people of this country are being deprived of one representative, and as it has not been alleged, even by the Prime Minister, that the rights depend not on a member holding two seats as against his holding three or more, then the principle which is being contended for by the Minister of Justice and the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is that, if the government in power were able to carry all the seats in the country by running a few men to hold a number of seats each, they might sit here as a House of Commons although they might be only a half or a quarter the number provided by the law, and they might sit for a full term of five years and the people would have no remedy or redress-nay, Sir. they would not even have ground of complaint concerning what some would think an outrage on their rights.
It would be bad enough in all conscience if the old Tory party had been thus endeavouring to trample on the rights of the people, but for the Reform party, a Reform party of the most progressive continent and the most progressive country in that continent, to endeavour thus to trample on the rights of the people, is indeed somewhat remarkable. I was pleased to see that the right hon. gentleman who leads this House did not himself endeavour to support the argument of the Minister of Justice. The right hon. gentleman, although he is occupying these seats during the whole of last session and so far this session, has no other justification than to put a motion on the Order Paper appointing a committee of the most eminent men selected from both sides of the House, to revise the rules, and the implication comes in that in terms surely there must be something wrong in the rules. Now, if everything was right and proper, if everything was satisfactory, why should these need to revise the rules? Do they intend to improve them on the ground that they are not quite right and proper? But if one is to understand the right hon. gentleman, as I think he may fairly be understood, his whole remarks were to this effect: A lamentable state of affairs existed, and I am in possession of -I won't say stolen goods-but if any hon. gentleman can suggest any way within a reasonable time, without any inconvenience, by which I can get rid of part of the goods, I am prepared to bow to their decision. Now when we look at this matter

as a question in which the government party is depriving a part of the people of their proper representation, I think we may go a step further and see on what grounds they claim so to deprive the people. When this matter first came before the House and the point was raised the Speaker, after first reading the rule, said:
In the imperial parliament the matter under consideration is dealt with by sessional orders which are renewed by the House of Commons from session to session, and which expire at prorogation.
Now here is the point:
The sessional order on the subject which was, presumably, passed by the Imperial House in 1867 may or may not have been in force on the 1st day of July in that year, depending on whether the House was then in session or had been prorogued before that date.
There is no doubt in the world, nobody will dispute, that if the imperial House was not in force on the 1st of July, 1867, then this rule would not apply, and could not be invoked. But one would have thought that the Minister _ of Justice, in referring to this matter, might have given the case sufficient attention to find out whether the imperial House was in session at that date. Surely it is not a difficult matter to visit the library, which is near at hand, where he could have found volumes to show whether it was in session or not. He could have found the ' Hansards' of the imperial House of that date, and the Journals of the House, which would have supplied him with the necessary information. So, unless we are deceived by the books placed in our hands in the parliamentary library, the imperial House was in session on that date; and if it was, why lose so much time in discussing this simple question? Then, Sir, the next point the Minister of Justice makes, in reading this rule, is that the sessional orders are different from all other orders. Of course they are different; a pink apple is different from a green apple and yet one may be just as much an apple as the other. A sessional order is different' from a permanent order, and I sincerely trust the Minister of Justice was enlightening his own side of the House, and not pretending that he was enlightening the members on this side of the House. But the point is not whether there is a difference between a sessional order and a permanent order, but the point is, when you come to read the rule, what is the meaning of certain words in that rule? If we can agree on what is meant by one of our own rules, then we need not bother about the difference between a sessional order and a permanent order. No one will differ from me in this reading of the rule. Now I propose to read the rule, eliminating the various words that have no reference at all to the question Mr. NORTHRUP.
before us, and I fancy that no one will say that I am not reading the rule fairly, it being understood that I am eliminating no material words:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter by sessional orders, the rules of proceeding-
Now what is the meaning of the phrase 'rules of proceeding'? Because if provision is made by sessional orders, and if we are dealing with rules of proceeding, then the argument of the Minister of Justice falls to the ground. Now what is the meaning of the words 'rules of proceeding'? It is true that this clause reads:	The
rules, usages and forms of proceeding*. But I imagine nobody will dispute the grammatical meaning of the words as I read them at first. Now when we come to find out the meaning of the words 'rules of proceeding', let us look at Redlich, than whom no higher authority, exists. We are trying to find out the meaning of the words 'rules of proceeding'. Redlich says:
In addition to the standing orders, a second category of procedure rules known as sessional orders, has grown up.
Now we go a step further. We have on the one hand the Minister of Justice trying to interpret the rules of proceeding, * and on the other hand we have the procedure rules. He did not pretend to distinguish between rules of proceeding and procedure rules; and if they meant one and the same thing, as surely they do, then Redlich will say that procedure rules are known as sessional orders, and if procedure rules are known as sessional orders, it cannot be monstrously absurd to call sessional orders procedure rules. And if procedure rules mean the same as rules of proceeding, then they comply with the very words of the rule we are discussing as one of the rules and orders of this House. Now look at another authority, May, perhaps no better authority couid be found, and I read on page 148:
At the commencement of each session both Houses agree to orders and resolutions, which are renewed from year to year.
The operation of orders or resolutions of either House of which the duration is undetermined, is not settled upon any certain principle. By the custom of parliament they would he concluded by a prorogation: but many of them are, as part of the settled practice of parliament, observed in succeeding sessions, and by different parliaments, without any formal renewal or repetition.
So, Sir, wa find that not only are sessional orders within the meaning of the rule particularly, but we find that sessional orders are in many cases observed as being part of the settled practice of parliament, and observed in succeeding sessions and by different parliaments, and without any formal renewal or repetition. Now when we get that far we begin to find

that the difference between sessional orders and other orders mav not by any means be the same as the Minister of Justice imagines. And I am sure, Sir, the members on this side of the House, if they cannot agree with all the Minister of Justice has said, at least will be quite ready to agree with his introductory remark that he did not pretend to have any familiarity with constitutional law or the procedure of houses of parliament.
In this same work, May, at page 148, is an illustration of what I have just read, of sessional orders becoming practically permanent orders and being held to be binding, not only in successive sessions, but in successive parliaments without any re-enactment. Some 15 or 20 examples of this occurring in England are given. Take, for example, the rule that the Speaker cannot take the chair if 40 members are not present. That rule came into existence on the 6th of January, 1640, and was the law in England up to the date of the publication of this 11th edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, in the year 1906. I shall not take up the time of the House in reading other examples. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie has shown this House that under English procedure the right hon. gentleman who leads this House is wrongfully depriving the people of Canada of one of the seats to which thev are entitled. I know that some of the representatives of the smaller provinces would not consider it a grievance if the seat which to him is so contemptibly insignificant should be given to one of these provinces. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island would rejoice if the seat were allotted to them. I trust the right hon. gentleman will see that in setting such an example as this, a blow is being struck not merely at the parliamentary reputation of. the people, not merely at the rights of the people, but at the position, at the dignity of this House. We hear it said continually that our courts and judges are entitled to the most profound respect, and a man either in this House or elsewhere will always feel a tremendous sense of responsibility in attacking our judiciary; but the same men who speak in this way of our judges will sav that the highest court in the land is the court of parliament. If one of our judges should go wrong-and it is the proud boast of Canada that we have never yet had the necessity of impeaching a judge-it would be considered a national disgrace by every Canadian. Then what are we to think if in the highest court of Canada, composed of those who make the laws for others who thus observe them, we find that by the right hon. gentleman who by such an overwhelming majority leads and governs that House, the law of the land is broken.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (North Lanark).: the House for a long time, and if the opinion of the Minister of Justice is correct we have been sadly derelict in our duty, for we have made no provision for this case. The Prime Minister must' be of the same opinion, because he could not so neglect his duty if he thought that we were not relying on these English sessional orders and privileges to guide and rule this House as I think they do until the present moment.
We are not attacking your opinion or ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this question. As the Prime Minister said, you were a little doubtful in reference to the matter and would like to be advised by the House. You suggested that the question be left to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. When you made that suggestion, why did not the government refer the matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections? They evidently left the matter to the House. There is no doubt at all that the sessional rules which were in force in England in 1867 aTe the rules which govern the procedure in this House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It has been the custom in the past that any proposal to amend the rules of this House should be properly examined into by a committee, and that is a very salutary procedure. If there is any doubt about the rule now in question before the House, it seems to me that the proper procedure would have been for my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) to ask for a special committee for the purpose of revising the rules in the line of his contention. The right hon. the leader of the government has given notice of a motion for a special committee to revise the rules of the House, and it seems to me that it would have been well for my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) to bring before that committee the interpretation which he seeks to put on rule 1. It would appear' to me, however, that the question which the hon. gentleman Taises is in reality a question of privilege. We have a statute which regulates who shall sit as a member of this House and who shall not. It is not left to .a rule of procedure to say who shall sit in this House, it is a statutory matter.


Mr. SPEOULE.: If there was a sessional order which said that two men could not sit for the same seat, would not that rule determine the question without any statute?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In my judgment the question of the qualification of a member to sit in this House is a statutory matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ' Then why don't they have such a statute in England? In England that question is regulated by a sessional order and not by statute.


John Graham Haggart: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have not adopted the same procedure in Canada with regard to that matter, and my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) understanding the principle which guides us has introduced a Bill declaring what shall be done by those that have been elected by more than one constituency.


Glenlyon Campbell: Does the hon. minister then say that my method is better than the method suggested by the Speaker in his ruling?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not say that the amendment proposed in the Bill of the hon. member (Mr. Campbell) is a good one, but 1 say that in introducing such a Bill he has followed the proper procedure. Such a question is to be determined, not by a rule of the House, but by the statute concerning the House of Commons. That statute provides, when the members come to take their seats in the House of Commons, whether they have a right to sit here or not, and the rules of the House are intended to determine the manner of our proceedings after the members have established their right to sit. My hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), in the procedure adopted by him in introducing his Bill, has shown a knowledge of correct procedure which commends itself to those who have studied the question.


Arthur Meighen: Does not the hon. minister realize that the affirmation of this resolution covers all the sessional orders that were in force in England on the 1st of July, 1867, and that the Bill of my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) only refers to one of them?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am dealing now with the form of procedure. The question of the standing orders of this House is a most important one, and one which should be dealt with after it has been considered by a committee of this House which can give it mature judgment and deliberation. There is no standing rule as to the manner in which we should make our rules, but Bouri-not and May and all the parliamentary authorities lay it down that no rules of the House should be amended until they have been considered in committee. .


Arthur Meighen: I am not asking for any amendment to the rules of the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But, my hon. friend is seeking to put an interpretation upon a rule of the House, and whether he is right or wrong in his view, it should first have full and mature consideration by a committee of this House.


Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.: Is the hon. minister aware that the most important change ever made in the rules of the British

House of Commons was made without any reference whatever to a committee?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: To what does the hon. gentleman refer?


Robert Laird Borden: I am referring to the first closure resolutions which were moved in the House -by Mr. Gladstone and which were not referred to a committee.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think my hon. friend is right in that respect. It was passed by the House almost unanimously and without any great debate; but he must admit that the procedure we have followed in this House, when we have made or amended any of our rules, has been to refer those rules to a committee to be fully considered.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not criticising that practice at all. I was simply saying that it was something departed from, and I did not consider this to be a proposal to amend the rule.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It amounts to the same thing.


Robert Laird Borden: Allow me to make myself clear. Suppose, for example, that there had been an inadvertent decision denying the right of a man to move an amendment on going into Supply, and on the day alter some hon. member should declare that according to the rules and usages of the British House of Commons or of this House no hon. member has the right to move an amendment to Supply. This is precisely of the same nature.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I cannot admit that. The interpretation which my hon. friend wants to put upon the first of our rules is a most important one, and before the House passes judgment upon it, I think it should be fully considered by a committee of this House or by the full House in committee. That has been our procedure in the past. Let us consider for a moment what the declaration is which we are called upon to make:
That in the judgment of this House the sessional orders of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in force on the first day of July, 1867, are within the meaning of the words, ' rules, usages and forms of proceeding/ as contained in rule 1 of the rules of the House of Commons of Canada.
I say this is a most serious declaration. What are we asked to embody in it? We are asked to embody rules which for forty years this parliament has not been supposed to put in force. I think, before we incorporate in our rules the important declaration made in this motion, we should inquire a little to find out how far we would be going by such a declaration. My hon. friend may be right in his interpretation of the law; but at the same time is it
advisable to adopt a sweeping declaration of that kind without having a committee of this House to investigate fully how far it would carry us? I may say that I do not think the procedure which my hon. friend is following is the proper procedure, and for this reason. My hon. friend knows that when a decision has been rendered by the Speaker, that decision stands as final unless there is an appeal from it. Rule 18 says:
The Speaker may permit debate of the point of order before rendering his decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken. The Speaker shall decide upon the point of order, which decision shall be subject to appeal to the House, but without debate. If there be no appeal, the decision of the Chair shall be final. ,
If I remember rightly, my hon. friend himself raised the question the other day, and appealed to the Speaker for a decision.
A. decision was rendered by the Speaker, and that was final unless an appeal was taken from it.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the point of order Mr. Speaker decided?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that my hon. friend brought before Mr. Speaker the point that a member of this House had no right to sit for two seats-that he had to make a declaration within a certain period, according to the rule that was in existence in the House of Commons of England in 1867.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend think that was a point of order within the meaning of the rule?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend called the Speaker's attention to that, and the Speaker decided that that rule was not in force; and I say that when the Speaker puts an interpretation upon a rule of this House and there is no appeal to the House from his decision, that becomes the judgment of the House. In this case my hon. friend is asking us to make a most important declaration, embodying in our rules all the sessional orders of the parliament of the United Kingdom that were in force on the first of July, 1867.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not even that. It is only those which deal with matters not expresssly provided for in our own rules.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Of course our rules are not very extensive, they are not nearly as extensive as those existing in England. At all events, my hon. friend is asking us to declare that all the rules and sessional orders passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1867 should form part of our rules of procedure. This is a most important declaration; we do not know where it would land us: and before

deciding such a question, I think it should be referred to a committee of the House to investigate how far it would take us.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister say whether standing orders are within the meaning of the rule?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, I think so.


Arthur Meighen: Does not his argument apply equally to those, and would not a committee of this House be equally necessary to decide what a standing order would lead to?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I must say to my hon. friend that I have not given that question very much consideration. I do not claim to know everything about that. While I have given some study to the rules of the House, I must admit that I do not know them all and am liable to make mistakes. At the same time I would not be prepared to declare offhand whether a sessional order did or did not form part of the rules of this House. I should make considerable distinction between standing orders and sessional orders. My own opinion is that although the standing rules of the British House of Commons form part of our rules, their sessional orders must not be applied in the same way. Possibly after studying the matter more carefully, I may come to a different conclusion; but for the time being I am strongly of the opinion that the sessional orders of the British House of Commons in force on the 1st of July, 1867, do not form a part of our standing orders.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. minister any authority which says that a sessional order is not a rule?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I say that the sessional orders of the British House of Commons should not be considered as part of our rule No. 1, because what is there contemplated is, not the rules which were in existence in England one, two or three sessions, but the standing rules which had been in existence for years and which were considered almost as important as the privileges themselves. That is the construction I would put upon rule No. 1. When my hon. friend asks us to declare that all the sessional orders of the British House of Commons form part of our rules, he is embarking on very dangerous ground and may find himself, after giving the matter more consideration, entirely _ mistaken. He may find that such a decision would incorporate in our procedure, rules which parliament never intended to form part of our standing rules. That is my view and I am sure the hon. gentleman will be well advised, under the circumstances, not to press his motion.


Mr. CROTHERS.: If I understand rightly the argument of the hon. gentlemen op-
Mr. BRODEUR
posite, they contend that there is no law, order or precedents in this country requiring a man who has been elected for more than one constituency to resign one of these seats at any time during the parliament for which he was elected, 'that in itself would strike the people, it seems to me, as a very startling proposition. It simply amounts to this, that a man might be returned for two or three or ten constituencies and sit for them all during a whole parliament, and that there is no law, constitution, order or rule requiring him to resign all but the one seat. I have here Bourinot's parliamentary procedure, a work which is accepted generally as indisputable authority in matters of this kind. Just listen for one moment to what he says on page 245:
In case a member is returned for two constituencies, lie must make his election for which of the places he will serve by formally resigning his seat when the House is in session. This election may be made by a member from his place in the House or in the usual legal communication to the Speaker.
If that authority be good (and as such it is quoted by you, Mr. Speaker, almost daily), the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite is erroneous, and by inference the sessional order of the British House of Commons, in force on the 1st of July, 1867, are included in the words 'rules, usages and forms of procedure' mentioned in rule 1. Otherwise there is no ground for Bourinot's statement that a member elected for several constituencies must select one and resign the others. If the sessional orders of the .British House of Commons, as they existed on the 1st of July, 1867, do not govern this case and are not included in our rule No. 1, then Bourinot had no ground for making the statement I have just read.
Further in section 1 of chapter 41 of the Statutes of Canada, 1907, it is provided that the House of Commons shall consist of 221 members. But if one member may represent two seats, then the House does not consist of 221 members but only of 220, and the right hon. gentleman who should be the last man to violate the constitution, has been representing two seats in this House in defiance of section 1 of chapter 41 Statutes of Canada, 1907.
There is a provision that where a member's seat is contested, he cannot resign until the suit is disposed of. But the protest against the right hon. gentleman for one of the seats in Ottawa was disposed of in June last. It is perfectly clear what the duty of the right hon. gentleman then was. Can there be any doubt about it? Is there any layman or lawyer who would not say that it was the duty of the right hon. gentleman, when that case was

disposed of, to elect whether he should sit for one of the seats in Ottawa or for Quebec East, for both of which he had been elected. So that since the month of June last the right hon. the Prime Minister has been violating the constitution of this country. This House should by law con-' sist of 221 members, but we are short of that number because the right hon. gentleman is occupying two seats, and all this trouble has arisen simply because he has failed to do his duty, in fact we seem to have reached the stage when no right of the people in this country is too sacred to be sacrificed to the necessities of political exigencies by the party now in power.
I submit that there is no getting away from the statement I started out with, if Bourinot is right in saying that a man elected for more than one seat must select one and resign from the other, then the sessional orders in force in England on the 1st of July, 1867, must be applicable here.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Meighen).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,	Lortie,
Arthurs,	Maddin,
Barker,	Magrath,
Barnard,	Marshall,
Blain,	Meighen,
Blondin,	Middlebro,
Borden (Halifax),	Nantel,
Boyce,	Northrop,
Bristol,	Paquet,
Burrell,	Perley,
Campbell,	Price,
Chisholm (Huron),	Roche,
Cowan,	Schaffner,
Crosby,	Sexsmith,
Crocket,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Crothers,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Currie (Simcoe),	Sproule,
Daniel,	Stanfield,
Donnelly,	Staples,
Edwards,	Stewart,
Elson,	Taylor (Leeds),
Goodeve,	Taylor (New
Haggart (Lanark),	Westminster),
Haggart (Wiiinipeg),	Thornton,
Henderson,	Wallace,
Herron,	White (Renfrew),
Hughes,	Wilcox (Essex),
Kidd,	Wil9on (Lennox &
Lake,	Addington),
Lalor,	Worthington,
Lancaster,	Wright.-61.
Lennox,	
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Allen,	McIntyre,
Aylesworth,	McKenzie,
Beauparlant,	McLean (Huron),
Boland,	Major,
Black,	Marcile (Bagot),
Borden (Sir F.),	Martin (Montreal,
Boyer,	Ste. Mary's),
Brodeur,	Martin (Regina),
Brown,	Martin (Wellington)
Bureau,	Mayrand,
Cash,	Michaud,
Champagne,	Miller,
Chew,	Molloy,
Chisholm	Murphy,
(Antigonish),	Neely,
Chisholm (Inverness),	. Oliver,
Clark (Red Deer),	Papineau,
Currie	Parent,
(Prince Edward),	Paterson,
Delisle,	Pickup,
Demers,	Proulx,
Devlin,	Prowse,
Dubeau,	Rankin,
Ecrement,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fortier,	Richards,
Fowke,	Robb,
Gauvreau,	Ross (Middlesex),
Geoffrion,	Ross (Rimouski),
Girard,	Roy (Dorchester),
Graham,	Roy (Montmagny),
Hodgins,	Schell,
Hunt,	Sealey,
King,	Smith (Middlesex),
Knowles,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Kyte,	Smith (Stormont),
Lachance, ^	Talbot,
Lafortune,	Templeman,
Laurier	Todd,
(Sir Wilfrid),	Tolmie,
Lavergne,	Turcotte (Nicolet),'
Law,	Turcotte
LeBlanc,	(Quebec County),
Loggie,	Turgeon,
Macdonald,	Turriff,
MacNutt,	Warburton,
McAllister,	White
McCoig,	(Victoria, Alta.),
McGiverin,	Wilson (Laval).-90.
PAIRS:	
Ministerial,	Opposition.
Fielding,	Foster,
Fisher,	Osier,
Pugsley,	Porter,
Lemieux,	Forget,
Low,	Smyth,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing),
Sinclair,	Clare,
McColl,	Macdonell,
Rutan,	Monk,
Douglas,	McCarthy,
Ethier,	Broder,
Harris,	Beattie,
Lovell,	Russell,
McMillan,	Doherty,
Sifton,	Reid (Grenville),
Bickerdike,	Ames,
Guthrie,	Owen,
Nesbitt,	Lewis,
Pardee,	Thoburn,
Clarke (Essex),	McCall,
Carvell,	Rhodes,
Gervais,	Bradbury,
Gordon (Kent),	Jamieson,
Harty,	Fraser,
Conmee,	Maclean (York),
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
[Stage Direction]
Excise-salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, &c., to provide for increases depending on the results of excise examinations, $439,000.
Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: The total increase in the excise branch of the department is $4,599.95, due to increases in the salaries of officers and inspectors, with probably some slight additions to the staff, and to the increase of the amount for extra duty at distilleries. The increases total $14,599.95. As against these, there are decreases of $10,000, making a nett increase, as stated, of $4,599.95.


Mr. BLAIN.: How many new officers?


William Templeman: I do not think we have the list of the new officers, but as the country develops, and the work of the department increases, additions to the staff are necessary. The number of officials in the outside service is steadily increasing with the increase of business and of the revenue.
for extra duty at large distilleries and other factories, $12,000.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: How many men are employed under this vote?


William Templeman: There is an increase of $2,000 in this vote, required in connection with new distilleries which, the department believes, are likely to be established during the coming year. This is for overtime for our officers at the distilleries.


Mr. BOYCE.: Where are the new distilleries to be established?


William Templeman: We have heard that one is likely to be established at Montreal. There was also some discussion about the establishment of a distillery at Winnipeg. Provision has to be made by this extra vote so that, if these new establishments do come into existence, we shall have money to pay the officers who must be appointed in connection with their operation.


John Allister Currie: As I understand it, this item is for extra labour at distilleries that have not yet been established and which are not certain to be established. Does not the minister think that a hazy item to ask the House to vote?


William Templeman: The vote is for $12,000, which is $2,000 of an increase over the current year. The whole of the $10,000 voted last session has been expended in paying officers at distilleries for overtime. We have reason to believe that the number of distilleries may be increased. We are simply taking provision for the payment of officers in that case.


John Allister Currie: The item last year was voted for the same purpose?


William Templeman: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: 


John Allister Currie: Are there any new distilleries established since last yeay?


William Templeman: No


John Allister Currie: And a vote was given last year by this House for extra time for officers in the minister's department in case that they should need to be employed in a new distillery, and as I understand, $10,000 was taken up. Is not this another method of getting around the law, and adding additional money to the salaries of officials in the department?


William Templeman: No, this is not an attempt to get money to increase the salaries of our officials. These salaries are determined by the Civil Service Act, and we could not increase them in this way if we desired to. I have a memorandum before me explaining this duty pay:
This duty pay was established by order in council of December 20, 1880, and was granted on the ground that the high rates of duty charged have increased the responsibilities of the officers, that the straight salaries paid them were obviously less than the qualifications necessary for the effective performance of such duties should command.
This duty pay is not to be considered as an addition to the officer's salary, as it pertains to the survey, not to the man. Officers receiving such duty pay are subject to removal to other surveys wherever the exigencies of the service so require. Their hours are likewise long, being from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. The duty pay is given under authority of the schedule to the Civil Service Act.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that none of this extra money voted last yeaT was expended at all? I thought he said they established no new distilleries.


William Templeman: My hon. friend did not understand me to say that, I said that the $10,000 voted last year had been expended. It is for the probable increase of work in the coming year that we are asking for this vote.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 28) respecting the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Fowke.
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Kamloops and Yellow Head Pass Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 32) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.

Bill (No. 35) respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 37) respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Donnelly.
Bill (No. 38) respecting the West Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company.-Mr. Cash.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.- Mr. McGiverin.
Bill (No. 59) respecting the Saint Maurice Valley Railway Company.-Mr. May-rand.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Excise-for extra duty at large distilleries and other factories, $12,000.
['Monday, December 13, 1909.']
Richard Blain: I see in the Auditor General's Report at page J-18 an item of $1,448.66 paid to 14 special officers of this department. I assume that these men were paid about $100 per annum each for special services at Windsor, Ontario. I would like to ask the minister what duties these men performed, at whose recommendation they were appointed, and what special qualifications they have for such duties.


William Templeman: That is the expenditure under this vote. These officers are our regular supervising excise officers, who are assigned to special services largely or altogether in connection with distilleries. Their duties are very exacting, very important and their hours very long. Each officer in charge of a distillery has to be on duty from seven o'clock in the morning until six o'clock in the evening. Their long hours and their responsible duties entitle them to some consideration over and above their regular salaries, which are fixed by the Civil Service Act, and therefore for these extra services they ^re paid the duty pay which has been paid by the department for 35 years. It is because this work is increasing somewhat that we are asking for $2,000 more this year than we asked for last year.


Richard Blain: On whose recommendation are these officers appointed, do they undergo any examination, and have they any special qualifications for this kind of work?


William Templeman: All the officers of mv department have to undergo the Civil Service examination before they can be appointed permanently. If an officer is put in temporarily, it is only with the understanding that he will pass the examination
at the first available opportunity. All these excise officers who are in charge of distilleries and receive this extra duty pay have passed up from one grade to another and have passed the examination for promotion required by the department. They are nearly all very old officials.


Richard Blain: I would like to know whether the doctrine laid down by the Finance Minister so clearly the' other evening is applied to my hon. friend's department, and whether these are political rewards to these men. The Finance Minister stated that the policy of the government was to give offices to their own political supporters.


Mr. FIELDING.: Not exactly. What I said was that if they did, I did not see why my hon. friend should complain.


Richard Blain: I accept the explanation, but what I want to know is whether, in the appointment of officers of this kind, my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue, applies the policy laid down by the Finance Minister, namely, that where an office is vacant and he can find a supporter of the government to fill it, it will go to him in preference to a Conservative, no matter what may be the qualifications of the latter.


William Templeman: The Department of Inland Revenue does not follow the practise my hon. friend has mentioned, that is, if a vacancy occurs in the position of a first or second-class excise officer, a new man will not be put directly in that position. In the Inland Revenue Department that would be impossible. Our special class officers, our first or second-class officers, are all men who have risen from the ranks after long service and who have passed, not only the original entrance examination, but the promotion examinations as well. They must have a knowledge of the details and the workings of the office, and I cannot remember any new men having been appointed to such office under my tenure of that department. Take for instance in the case of distilleries, the officer must be competent to see that the revenue of the government is properly safe-guarded, and to do that he must have had some experience in a lower branch, so that new men are not put in these positions at all.


Richard Blain: What about the new men appointed?


William Templeman: They are appointed to the lower grades at $500 a year an,d are very seldom given an appointment to a higher grade.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has answered many unasked questions, but he has failed to measure up the question I put to him. What I want to know is whether, when my hon. friend makes an appoint-

ment in his department, whether it be to a minor or a more important grade, he follows the policy laid down by the Finance Minister, that to the victor belong the spoils or, in other words, that these new men must be supporters of the party.


William Templeman: As regards the appointment of new officials, we accept men who are qualified to fill these lower vacancies, and other things being equal we give the preference, of course, to our political friends. The appointments are very few indeed, and those are to the lower grades, and the offices in such grades are hardly worthy of acceptance, as $500 per year is not a great inducement to outsiders to take them. We do not put new appointees over the heads of officers in the department, but where a man is recommended to me by a political friend, and we have the assurance that he is competent, we most unquestionably give him the preference.


Richard Blain: How are the recommendations made?


William Templeman: Personally, verbally, in writing and in many ways toy members of parliament and others. There is_ no particular system, but I generally satisfy myself that the applicant is fit for the position. I have very frequently indeed sent the name of the party recommended to the collector of Inland Revenue in that particular district and asked him to advise me confidentially if the applicant is fit to be appointed to the service.


Richard Blain: That is very frank, and I wish to compliment the Minister of Finance upon his influence in the cabinet. That influence seems to reach out to all these departments. His colleague has been very frank in admitting that these new appointments he has mentioned are given to party supporters and that no Conservative need apply. That is the policy of the government clearly announced. I was afraid there might be some disagreement in the cabinet, but all the ministers seem to think alike on that subject, and the country will understand that this government, which came into office with so many professions of a higher standard of politics, has reached the point that no new appointments can be made to his department except to a government supporter.
understood by our friends across the border where they mean a great deal more than the meaning I would give them. The question to determine is, first, what these spoils are. I would not consider that an office already held by a respectable Conservative was a spoils that must be got rid of. But if a vacancy occurred in the public service and there was a good Liberal capable of filling the place, and if we passed him over and gave the place to one of my hon. friend's friends, then we ought to be turned out.
Duty pay to officers serving longer hours at other than special survey, $1,500.


William Templeman: This is on the line of the last vote. It is to enable the department to pay duty pay to deserving officers engaged at other than special survey on account of their long hours and attendance, and in some cases the character of their work. These officers serve from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and this vote is paid to officers in the bonded manufactories.


John Allister Currie: This service is a technical service to a large extent. Have any men been appointed to this service since the minister took office who have not passed the Civil Service examination, and if so, how many?


William Templeman: There have been appointments made to deputy collector-ships where the appointees have not passed the examination, the law not requiring that they should. All temporary appointees are expected to pass an examination, and they are not put on permanently and do not receive the annual increment of five per cent of salary until they do pass. It is quite true that in the outside service quite a num ber of men in the lower ranks have not yet passed the examination. Almost every time an examination is held a large number of our officers go up and try; some pass, and some fail and try again; some of them probably will never pass the examination. Some of them are very good officers and trustworthy men. I think perhaps out of 300 or 400 officers, 50 or 60 have not passed the examination.


John Allister Currie: Does this item cover those men in the service supervising what is known as the blending of liquors?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has been here all these years, and if he has only made that discovery now, he is somewhat duller than I took him to be. The only exception I take to his remarks is where he attributed to me the phrase ' to tlie victor belongs the spoils.' I never used the words in that particular sense which he applies to them, and in which they are Mr. BLAIN.


William Templeman: This item has no reference to what my hon. friend mentions. It refers to duty pay to officers in charge of bonded manufacturing establishments, for the manufacture of vinegar for instance, where officials have to be present from early in the morning till late at night. It is responsible work, and this extra pay is for services rendered. It attaches to the

office rather than to the man, it is not a portion of his salary at all.


John Allister Currie: I have heard that repeated several times. But I want to ask the minister if he has not special officers in charge of the manufacture of blended liquors, and what are the regulations in his department in that respect?
. Mr. TEMPLEMAN. There is no such thing.


Mr.   J.@: ' A. CURRIE. What machinery has the minister got for enforcing the statute that covers the case of blending and the licensing of blenders?


William Templeman: I suppose my hon. friend is referring to the compounding of liquors?


John Allister Currie: Yes.


William Templeman: It is nearly the same thing. There are licenses issued to a number of firms to compound liquors. As my hon. friend knows, all this liquor is duty paid before they can compound it. The only interest the department has is to collect the revenue.


John Allister Currie: I understand they use liquor in vinegar factories.


William Templeman: That is not compounded.


John Allister Currie: I am well aware it is not compounded, but it is used in some instances. A vinegar manufacturer can purchase his alcohol duty paid and manufacture vinegar from it. I suppose the department has seen fit to place officers in charge of these factories to see that that law is not violated.


William Templeman: In a bonded manufacture such as a vinegar factory we have officers. They manufacture in bond. Of course, the alcohol is converted into vinegar, and our officers see that the revenue is safeguarded. But that is a different thing altogether from the compounding of alcohol. In that case the liquor is duty . paid beforehand, so that the revenue could not possibly be defrauded.
Mr. .T, A. CURRIE. I do not wish to delay the minister; but I understand that there is a great deal of fraud committed in connection with the blending of liquor under licenses issued by the department. I understand that blenders buy cheap alcohol, that they mix all kinds of material with it, and manufacture so-called corn liquors which they sell throughout the country. For instance, a large quantity of what they call Scotch whisky is sold in this country, which is really manufactured by these people; also Egremont Mint and Benedictine are sold as foreign liquors, though they are manufactured by our Canadian vendors out of alcohol and other specific mixtures. They have brands upon them of firms supposed to be located in France, and Portugal, and in Scotland. Now that really constitutes a fraud on the public, a greater fraud even than the sale of unlicensed liquor. If a manufacturer wishes to put up Canadian whisky in bottles, he must place a seal on it, and of course that is done in bond. But have any steps been taken by the department to look into this matter, and have any representations been made to them on that question? We see reports in the newspapers of men dying from the effects of partaking of liquor which contains chloral hydrate and other drugs. No doubt the hon. minister saw the item in the papers with regard to Fort William and the northwest section of Ontario generally. Does not the minister think that some steps should be taken to meet cases of this kind, prevent adulteration and put a stop to the fraudulent marking of liquors with the names of manufacturers, or alleged manufacturers, in other countries?


William Templeman: 1 am inclined to think that the fraudulent marking of alcoholic beverages would come under the Criminal Code. It has nothing to do with the Department of Inland Revenue.


John Allister Currie: If a man were to put on goods manufactured in Canada the label of, let us say, Lea and Perrin, I sup-oose that would be a fraud. But if he were to put on the name of some suppositious manufacturer in Glasgow or Birmingham, would that be a fraud?


William Templeman: It would not be an offence against the Inland Revenue Act, but it might be against the Criminal Code. I am not familiar enough with the penalties under the Criminal Code in relation to false markings to say whether misrepresentation of that kind would be counted a fraud or not, but I assume it would be. With regard to the purity of whisky, it is a fact that during last summer the Department of Inland Revenue made large collections of liquors as sold over the bar in many places in Ontario and even in Manitoba where statements were made that impure or poisonous stuff was sold over the bar. Analyses were made, and in almost every instance the report of our chemist was that nothing of a deleterious nature -nothing more deleterious than the whisky itself; nothing of a poisonous character -was added. Rarely anything more than alcohol or water was found to have been contained in any of the samples. For myself, I have very grave doubts about these reports concerning poisonous liquors

being sold. I read the despatch in -the newspapers relating to what happened at Fort William or Port Arthur. The offence of adulteration there referred to does not come under the Inland Revenue law. It may be possible that some foolish saloon man, thinking he could make cheap beverages, would try to doctor it up with noxious drugs. But we cannot be held responsible for that. The offence would he punishable no doubt, under the Criminal Code. The purity of liquor, if it is ever going to be dealt with, I suppose will have to be determined by standard to be decided upon by the officers of the Inland Revenue Department in connection with the standards for foods, upon which, as a matter of fact, the department is at present engaged.


John Allister Currie: I have looked over the returns published by the department in connection with this collection of liquors to which the minister has referred, and I notice that there is an absence of deleterious products ; but I notice also that there is a pretty constant addition of twenty-five per cent of water to the liquor sold throughout the country. Does not it occur to the minister that it would be wise, in the interest of his department and for the increase of the revenue, if some method were devised by which the sellers of liquors of that description could be punished? It would appear that it is possible to secure twenty-five per cent more revenue which now the hotelkeeper and middle-man are taking.


William Templeman: The department cannot he defrauded in that way. Our_excise duty is based on the measured proof gallon, and this must be paid when it leaves the bonding warehouse after being purchased by private parties, of course they can put in what they like. They may sell it at proof, or at fifty per cent under proof-just as weak as they can deceive the public into taking. But there is something in the point that the hon. member (Mr. Currie) makes. I suppose there should be a standard of strength for whisky. If we establish a standard providing that there should be so much alcohol and so much water, then if there be more water, that would be a violation of the law and punishable as such. The question is, what can we do? The temperance men will say that the lower you put the standard the better-the more water there is in the whisky the less harm it will do. But we are grappling with the question of fixing a standard for foodstuffs of all kinds and for drinks, including alcoholic drinks, and we hope, before many weeks, to be able to submit a set of standards under which the Adulteration of Foods Act may be better enforced. That is, of course, an enlargement of the subject actually under discussion. But I hope to fix standards for foodstuffs and liquors.



John Allister Currie: I do not wish to delay the committee, but I would like to ask another question. There is an impression abroad in this country that the Scotch whisky sold here is the product of the old pot still. It is sent into this country by Scotch distillers and sold as Scotch whisky. Now, the minister is aware that there has been considerable agitation and, in fact, litigation, in the old country over the question of what constitutes Scotch whisky. But it has been shown, apart altogether from the question of whether all Scotch whisky is the product of the pot still or of the fractional still, that there is such a thing as real Scotch whisky which is the product of the Scotch still which was known before the fractional or silent still was brought into use. All the whisky made in Canada is the product of the silent still, and the distilleries here are required to mature their product, I understand, for three years before it is sold to the public. But here is where the trouble comes in: A distiller in Scotland or England who manufactures with the silent still turns out exactly the same product as our own distillers, and, by simply reducing the strength of that spirit, putting in some flavouring matter, to give it the flavour of Scotch whisky-such as wine or a touch of pyro-gallic acid to give it a smoky smell and taste-he is allowed to ship that stuff into Canada and sell it in this country within thirty days of the time it leaves the still. Whilst the very same product manufactured in Canada by the very same process, without the addition of these flavouring extracts, is required to be held in bond three years. Would it not be fair that some steps should be taken by the Excise Department to stop the importation of any hard spirits such as whiskies which have not been matured for the same length of time in bond in this country as Canadian made spirits are matured? This liquor is manufactured abroad, by men who run these silent stills, from refuse of all kinds, beet root refuse, potatoes and everything of that kind, while in Canada we compel the distiller to adopt a very high standard. The foreign distiller has an advantage any way because he can manufacture cheaper than the Canadian, and the very fact that his liquor is imported gives it an additional value, the consumer paying the duty. Will the minister investigate this, and may we expect any reform in the immediate future?


William Templeman: The importation of Scotch or any other whisky does not come within the province of the Inland Revenue Department. The Customs Department deals with it.


John Allister Currie: You should not allow the Minister of Customs to encroach on you, to run in his stuff in opposition to yours.


William Templeman: It is quite true that the alcohol made in Canada is matured for two years before it is permitted to be sold. That regulation was made many years ago, I believe at the request of the manufacturers of alcohol in Canada. I do not know the motive in making it; it may improve the quality of the whisky. This requirement is maintained because the distillery men wish it, not because the department is particularly anxious to continue the two year period of maturing. We have no control over the manufacture of whisky in Scotland. There would, however, appear to be an unfair competition when liquor a month old from Scotland competes with Canadian liquor kept in bond for two years to mature. I do not know whether the Canadian is any better than the other; although I have sampled both, I am not a judge. I freely admit that there is an apparent hardship upon the Canadian distillers, but they have never made any representations to the department in that regard. Within the last month or two the compounders have made certain representations regarding labelling and mixing. Certain features of the question are now under consideration of the department. My hon. friend will see that the Excise Department has nothing whatever to do with imposing any conditions upon liquor imported into Canada.
Travelling expenses, rent, fuel, stationery, Ac., $90,000.


Mr. COWAN.: Is the matter of fixing a standard for milk under the consideration of the department?


William Templeman: Yes, I think it is practically ready.


George Henry Cowan: What would you mean by a standard?


William Templeman: I presume we would lay down a percentage of butter fat, solids, &c., below which no cream or milk could be sold.


George Henry Cowan: How soon do you expect that standard to be ready?


William Templeman: The chief chemist of the Inland Revenue Department has been working on this question for many months because there are many articles to be considered. He is at present in consultation with two other expert chemists from Toronto and Montreal, in order to arrive at a standard in each case. I understand that the standards are very nearly completed and will be ready for approval by the government within a month or two.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: How much of this vote was for travelling expenses and how are the travelling expenses made up?


William Templeman: The Auditor General's Report will state the amount of travelling expenses. The travelling expenses, of course, are the expenses of our district inspectors in the first place. We have some six or seven district inspectors, each of whom travels over his district four times a year. Then, the collector of each collecting district inspects all the subdivisions within his district and the travelling expenses of these officials accounts for the larger part of the expenditure.


George Taylor: You have an item of $60 for car tickets in Ottawa. Do these high salaried officials at Ottawa get street car tickets as well?
Mr. TEMPLEMAN, It is customary to allow street car tickets to the departmental officials who have to travel considerable distances to warehouses. For instance, the officers go over to Hull and it is thought to be more economical to give them street car tickets than to establish an office there.
Stamps for imported and Canadian tobaccos, $85,000.


Mr. GOODEVE.: From whom are these stamps obtained?


William Templeman: These stamps are all printed in the bank note establishment on Wellington street under a contract made by the Finance Department for the printing of postage stamps and all stamps used by the government.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Are tenders called annually for this work?


William Templeman: I understand that the contract runs for a number of years.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Does the minister know if a contract has been let by tender during the last 10 or 15 years?


William Templeman: I know it does not go back 15 years.


Mr. HENDERSON.: There has been a change within 15 years because prior to the present government coming into power it was a Canadian firm that had the manufacturing of the stamps. Ht is only since the present government came into power that an American firm has been given the work.


William Templeman: I understand they got the contract because their tender was the lowest, but that matter is in the Finance Department. I am not familiar with it.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Is the government considering the question of having an establishment for printing stamps in- connection with the mint?


William Templeman: No, and if they take my advice they wont consider it for

one moment. The idea of connecting the mint with the printing of stamps is rather a curious combination of industry. The work done by the Wellington street firm is very excellent and very superior and in my opinion no better bank note printing is done on the continent of America or anywhere else in the world. I think it would be a great pity if the government undertook to do work of that kind. It is done much better and much cheaper than the government could do it.
. Mr. GOODEVE. Does the minister not know that the government of the United States took away the contract from this very same company, and that they are now printing their stamps in connection with their mint and saving a very large sum of money thereby.


William Templeman: I do not think the printing of stamps can be done in connection with the United States mint although it probably may be done by the government printing establishment in Washington.
L. A. Frechette, for special translation, $100.


William Templeman: This is the same vote every year.


George Taylor: What do we get for it?


William Templeman: There are circulars issued by the department and Mr. Frechette has done the work of translating them.


George Taylor: Is he an officer of the department?


William Templeman: No. He was the French translator of the House of Commons. I understand that he has been superannuated, and therefore I will move that the name be struck out of the vote.


George Taylor: My hon. friend had better strike the item out. Surely he has in his department clerks who understand French and can translate these circulars.


William Templeman: We have in the department several French clerks who are very excellent clerks; but my hon. friend knows that to be a good translator a man requires to be pretty highly educated in both languages, and I do not know that any of these clerks are highly enough educated to do this work.


Mr. TALBOT.: I think it is high time the Minister of Inland Revenue appointed a few French Canadians in his department to do this work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it the policy of the government to superannuate men who can still work, or men who have done service and cannot work any longer? If this gentleman has been superannuated, how is it Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
that he is not left to spend the rest of his days in rest, but is to be employed in doing this work?


William Templeman: This is not a vote for superannuating any person. It is for paying for a small amount of translation required by the department.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am not objecting to the amount, but to the principle of employing to do work a man who has been superannuated on the ground that he is past work.


William Templeman: I understand that Mr. Frechette has been superannuated since these estimates were printed, and for that reason I have moved to strike out his name so that the money can be paid to any one.
Provisional allowance of not more than $150 each to officers in Manitoba and provinces west thereof whose salaries from any government service do not exceed $1,000, $5,000.


William Templeman: This is a vote we have taken for several years to pay these officers something extra on account of the greater cost of living in the west.


George Taylor: How much was paid out on this account last year?


William Templeman: 


George Taylor: Is this sum voted to the minister so that he can pick out his political friends and donate $150 to each of them, and leave the poor Tories to go dry, or does he give it to all the officers?


William Templeman: All the officers in the four western provinces, without regard to politics, receive from this vote a small amount, ranging from $25 to $100 according to salary. The smaller the salary a man receives the larger the sum he gets out of this vote.
To enable the department to supply methylated spirits to manufacturers, the cost of which will be recouped by them, and to pay for rent, light, power, freight, salaries, &c., $50,000.


William Templeman: Last year the amount expended for this purpose was about $40,-
000.	This year we are reducing the vote by


George Taylor: I see that $3,305 was paid to J. P. Wiser & Sons of Prescott, for non-potable spirits. Are these methylated spirits?


William Templeman: That is precisely what this vote is for. We purchase nonpotable grain alcohol from all the distillers, but principally, I think, from the Gooder-hams, of Toronto. With this we mix wood alcohol to produce the methylated spirits sold by the department and we get the money back with a slight profit.

Adulteration of food and the administration of the Act respecting fertilizers, fraudulent marking and commercial feeding stuff, $30,000.


William Templeman: This is the usual vote.


George Henry Cowan: How much is expended in British Columbia for salaries of inspectors and others?


William Templeman: The amount is very little indeed. The inspectors of foods are officers of the department, who are appointed at very small sums, ranging from $100 to $200 and in some cases $300. They perform certain services when requisitioned, such as purchasing samples for the analyst. There is one in Vancouver and another in Victoria. In addition the provincial health officer has a retaining fee from the department of $400 as public analyst.


George Henry Cowan: Is one inspector in Vancouver sufficient?


William Templeman: One might do for the whole province.


George Henry Cowan: Is the minister aware that the amount of milk alone sold in the city of Vancouver would require the services of five inspectors? Does he know anything about the prosecutions for the adulteration of milk in Vancouver?


William Templeman: The Department of Inland Revenue, under the Adulteration of Foods Act, has nothing to do with the prosecution of people for the selling of impure milk. That is a municipal matter. There is scarcely a city in the Dominion which has not by-laws in that connection and inspectors, and the department does not infringe upon municipal jurisdiction.


George Henry Cowan: Where do the municipalities get their power to pass their by-laws with regard to the adulteration of milk?


William Templeman: In the Adulteration of Foods Act.


George Henry Cowan: In what section?


William Templeman: I cannot say offhand but my bon. friend is a lawyer and must know. Every municipality has the power to appoint inspectors, and many have done it.


George Henry Cowan: I would have thought that as the subject has been dealt with here, the jurisdiction would be vested in this parliament.


William Templeman: Under clause 10 of the Adulteration of Foods Act, municipalities may appoint inspectors, but even in addition to that, if I remember rightly, the municipalities can protect themselves. They have jurisdiction with regard to hygienic conditions in dairy establishments and stables and that sort of thing, and I am inclined to think that, under the provincial law, the municipalities can be delegated that power. However, I would not care to enter into a legal controversy with my hon. friend who for years has been the solicitor for the municipality of the city of Vancouver. I would refer him also to section 13 of the Adulteration of Foods Act, which gives further power of the same kind.


George Henry Cowan: I do not seek to enter into a legal discussion with the minister, but am merely drawing his attention to the fact that the machinery of the Act is exceedingly cumbersome. Not only is tire substantive part of the Act insufficient to protect the public, but the machinery is inadequate and complicated. I was going to suggest that it would be desirable to fix a standard for milk and that the machinery of the Act should be improved, because at present it is impossible to get a conviction under it.


William Templeman: I am disposed to agree with my hon. friend that the Act can be^ improved, and I think that the first thing to do is to provide a standard. If we had a fixed standard for all food stuffs, we could enforce the Act much more effectively. That is a matter the department has under consideration.


George Henry Cowan: I am suggesting not only that the department should fix the standard, blit that it should improve the machinery of the Act. For instance, the public, in order to reach the halls of justice, must go through the portals of your inspectors.


George Taylor: The minister comes before us this year, as in other years, and asks for money which, as at present used, is wasted or worse than wasted. He pays his inspectors to go about the country and buy samples of various articles. These samples are sent to Ottawa and analysed, and the results are published in a bulletin. The bulletin shows that three-quarters of these articles are adulterated. Yet no body is prosecuted, because there is no standard and the minister will not fix a standard. Practically every family in this country is using adulterated foods which are sold in the stores generally. The minister knows this, for the facts are before



him in his own bulletin. But it is the same old story-they have not fixed the standard and we cannot enforce the Act. I hold that we should not vote another dollar for this service until the minister says that any man who sells adulterated food will be prosecuted by the officers of the department.


George Henry Cowan: There are two things absolutely necessary in order to make that Act workable; one is the fixing of a standard and the other is the taking away from the inspectors of the power to shelter the guilty. I am not charging that they actually shelter the guilty, but what I do say is that the public cannot go directly into the courts and secure the enforcement of the Act except under onerous conditions. If these were changed, the machinery would be more workable.


William Templeman: I think the results of the analyses of the collection made all over the country and the publication of the results have been good. The publicity thus given to the facts and also the prosecutions that have taken place and the imposition of penalties, so far as they have been imposed, have had a very good effect upon the purity of food-stuffs actuallysold in Canada. I have here a memorandum showing the percentage of adulteration for ten years past, and in every case there is a considerable reduction in the percentage. For instance, in maple sugar the percentage of adulteration went down from 45 per cent in 1905 to 13 per cent in 1908; in maple syrup from 82 per cent to 13 per cent in the same period. In milk, the percentage below standard in 1890 was 22 per cent. It has varied year by year, going down as low as three or four per cent, but last year it was ten per cent. I have another memorandum showing the results of the analysis of a number of samples covering a very large variety of articles. I will not weary the House by reading it, but I may say that the result is exceedingly encouraging indeed, there being a far less percentage of adulteration in all lines to-day than there was even five years ago. I think this good result is, in a measure at all events, due to the enforcement of the Adulteration of Foods Act through the collection of samples and the publication of the bulletins.


George Taylor: 


Mr. LENNOX.: Would the minister repeat what he said about prosecution; I did not hear it.


William Templeman: Last year, a large number of prosecutions were entered against parties found guilty of adulteration or of having sold adulterated goods. These are the samples referred to in the bulletin.


John Allister Currie: How many prosecutions were there?


William Templeman: I do not know how many actions, but I have here a statement of the amount paid in. This is what we have done: Where a dealer sold goods not up to a standard, we submitted to him that he should pay the cost of the analysis of the sample. In most cases, we found that the party with the adulterated goods in his possession was not the guilty party, but probably an innocent trader. And that, by the way, is one of the defects of the Act-we do not at all times reach the men who are guilty of the adulteration. So, in the case of adulteration of goods bought at a grocery store, for instance, we have said to the dealer:	If you pay the costs
the department has incurred up to the present time, we will not prosecute.


John Allister Currie: Has the minister prosecuted any?


William Templeman: In cases which I have before me, arising all over the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, sums of from $12 to $19 were paid by some thirty or forty different people. There were a great many other prosecutions.


John Allister Currie: While the hon. member has the papers before him, will he read the names of the parties prosecuted?


William Templeman: I will hand my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) the list.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it.


William Templeman: These are not the names of one-quarter of those against whom actions were entered, and who paid penalties of from $12 and, in one case, up to $66


ADULTERATION OF FOOD-PENALTIES COLLECTED.
[Stage Direction]
Year.	Name.	Place.	Sample.	Fine.1907-08	J. Lamoreau	Montreal	#	$ cts. 5 00 17 00 17 00 12 00 12 00 12 00 12 00 12 00 12 00 12 00 12 00 12 00 12 001907-08.	H. Delorme	„	1907-08.	Geo. Bertrand	1908-09.	A. McIntyre	Stratford	1908-09.	W. A. Cameron	Perth	1908-09.	M. Patterson	1908-09.	S. T. Emery	Montreal	1908-09.	Woodward Dept. Store	Vancouver	1908-09.	G. E. Hughes	Charlottetown	1908-09.	H. Skinner	Kingston	1908-09.	L. T. Best	1908-09.	A. P. Chowne	1908-09.	A. Thompson Co	Toronto	1908-09.	A. E. Drewery	1908-09.	D. W. C. Stevens	St. John, N.B	12 OO 12 00 12 00 25 00 62 00 9 00 5 00 12 50 14 00 19 00 19 001908-09.	S. Moisan	Montreal	1908-09.	W. F. Forgues	Montreal	1908-09.	G. F. & J. Galt	Calgary	1908-09.	The Geo. Matthews Co.	Ottawa	1908-09.	U. Ethier	1908-09.	R. B. 'Dakin	Halifax	1908-09.	A. Desbrisay	1909-10.	Mies A. A. Drinkwater	London	
.	1909-10.	McLarty Bros	Owen Sound	1909-10.	H. Shay	
25	372 00
These amounts are the amounts that the department offered to accept in lieu of prosecuting. We thought then and think still that the penalty then imposed was quite sufficient. There is still in the Justice Department a large number of cases {or prosecution.
George Henry Cowan: That is the mystery of the case, why these amounts were paid. A man is guilty of selling adulterated food, that is, he has committed an offence, not against the department but against the public, and an analysis is made at the expense of the government inspector. The accused is brought up; some times he is brought before the man who has the patronage in the district, and sometimes to the inspector; he is brought up, and that is all. He is told: Now, if you pay the analyst so much, and the lawyer that is engaged in the matter so much, we will hush it up. Now, the minister has failed to show any cases of conviction. Again, if the minister wishes to make that Act useful, let him call on his department to do away with the machinery which puts the guilty man in the power of the inspector. I am not charging that any particular inspector has abused that power, but I come very near it, and I say that the figures the minister has read out show that these men, guilty of a crime against the public, are brought, not into the courts of justice-the only place where justice 43i
can be done to the public in case of an offence against the public-but into the office of some good Liberal lawyer, or bad Liberal lawyer, if you will; and he is told that if he will fork out $5, say to the analyst, and something to the lawyer, and something for somebody else, amounting perhaps to $82, as the minister says in one case, why, he can go scot free. The crime is condoned in the lawyer's office, not in court, fior he never gets there. That is our experience all over Canada, at least on the coast, that this Act is not workable. The inspector has to shove his face into the prosecution, he is charged with the duty of enforcing the Act, and instead of chasing the guilty man into court, he chases into some private office and settles with him. I submit again that the minister has proven by his own figures that the machinery of that Act is in bad need of amendment. I would ask the minister if he has any cases of conviction?


William Templeman: Yes, lots of them. I think my hon. friend is not as familiar with the mode of procedure under the Adulteration of Food Act as he ought to be. The inspector, who has been roundly abused by my hon. friend as shielding the guilty, has little or nothing to do with the enforcement of the Adulteration of Food Act. As a matter of fact, I have always thought that the title of inspector

of food is a misnomer. Under the Adulteration of Food Act the inspector is simply a clerk in the excise office, and receives from us a small salary, $100 or $200 a year in addition to his regular salary for the purpose of collecting samples, when he is advised by the chief chemist. lie goes to a grocery store, or any other place, and he buys a sample, and divides it into three parts. He seals these in the presence of the dealer, leaves one sample with the dealer, and sends another to the head office in Ottawa. That is all he has to do; he is a witness, therefore, that that narticular article was bought from that particular grocer. He puts his seal on it ; and the sample sent here is analysed. Now, the inspector disappears altogether from the scene until there is a prosecution, when he js a witness to this fact only, that this is the sample of the butter, it may be, ot the pepper, or whatever article that he bought from that particular dealer; that is all he has to do. He does not initiate proceedings, he has nothing to do with the prosecution, he has nothing to do with the settlement. The department in Ottawa, after these samples are analysed and adulteration is found to exist, places the matter in the hands of the Justice Department, and from that time until a settlement is reached the Inland Revenue Department has nothing more to do with the matter. My hon. friend has been unfair in his reflections upon the inspectors. They	are	our	agents simplyfor the purpose of collecting samples for analvsis. I	am	free	to admit	thatthe Adulteration	of	Food	Act needs	improvement, and	I	hope we will	improve it. Certainly the first thing to do is to provide a standard of food, so we will not fail. One reason why in the last few years we have not prosecuted to a finish as much as we formerly tried to do, and why we accept the payment of the expenses of the department rather than go on and prosecute, is because in a prosecution, I think in the city Of Montreal, the judge refused to convict because there was no standard. I imagine that another judge -would follow that precedent and refuse to convict where there was no standard. I do not know that there is any more information I can give my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan). I have said frankly that I think the Adulteration of Food Act ought to be improved, and I trust will be improved this session.


George Henry Cowan: Will the minister go further and admit that it is not a desirable mode of enforcing that Act that I, for instance, who might wish to prosecute for a.n offence under the Act, would have to Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
go to the inspector and make a deposit of $25.


William Templeman: My hon. friend cannot do that under the present Act. The inspector has nothing to do with that and never received a deposit, as far as I am aware.


John Allister Currie: A deposit is required in certain cases under the Act before a private individual can prosecute.


George Henry Cowan: The Act provides that if upon analysis an article is found to be adulterated the person at whose instance the analysis is made may prosecute the offender upon making a deposit of $25 with the collector of Inland Revenue.


William Templeman: That is not the inspector.


George Henry Cowan: It is the same thing, you have said that the officers of your department are your inspectors. . It works out in the same way; I cannot get a prosecution unless I put up security. Rut if you commit a common law offence, an assault, I can lay an information and prosecute you. why is the distinction made?


William Templeman: The clause referred to is a provision whereby any person can prosecute, and I think that the provision requiring a deposit is very proper. Where there is adulteration the department carries on prosecutions and has done so to a very large extent, but there is also that provision that if a private individual desires to prosecute by making the deposit, I presume to cover the preliminary expenses, he is privileged to do so. While the provision is a proper one, I do not think it has been taken advantage of by any person.


George Henry Cowan: I take issue with the minister there, any man who has to do with the actual business of prosecuting offenders would disagree with him. As that Act is framed it is in the mind of the public that they have nothing to do with the enforcement of the Act. It is in the hands of the government and the local heelers are quick to catch on to that and get out of it whatever fees they can, so that there is a settlement and no conviction. I doubt if there could be a conviction because there is no fixed standard, but even if you had a standard the prosecution would lose its way in some government office and the case would never reach the court under that provision because there is an embargo placed on the public prosecuting under that Act.
Mr. 0. A. WILSON. There may be something in what the hon. member has said about the framing of this Act in relation to prosecutions. I have had some experi-

ence as an attorney in the city of Montreal. The hon. member has asked for cases of conviction. In 1906 or 1907 when the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur) held the portfolio of Inland Revenue, I was charged by this government to prosecute in five cases of adulteration, three of maple syrup, and two of butter. In the maple syrup prosecutions I secured three convictions and the defendants were fined $20. There was doubt in the mind of the magistrate about the working of the Act, especially in the absence of a Canadian standard. We acted upon an American standard and another provision of the Act under which we had to refer to a pharmacopeia, French or British, I do not remember exactly. Mr. Small, who was prosecuted, appealed to the Court of Appeal, criminal side. The case was argued before Mr. Justice Tren-holme, who kept it en delibere for a year; the appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed and a report made to the government to that effect. If I remember the argument advanced by Mr. Cotton, a very able lawyer for the defence, he objected to the provision of the law that the' certificate of the analysis is prima facie evidence that has to be rebutted by the person accused. He also based his argument on the absence of a standard. After consultation with the gentleman who was acting as chief analyst in Ottawa just after the death of Mr. Macfarlane, we came to the conclusion that in order to do justice to the people of our community, many samples of maple syrup would have to be gathered from different points. In order to make it uniform or perhaps have different standards according to the different soil, land, or maple trees in the different provinces. The other two cases in which I was engaged were cases of the sale of oleomargarine. Both of the accused were found guilty and fined $20 and costs. So I am glad to be in a position to inform my hon. friend (Mr. Cowan) that convictions were secured. I think the department concluded that some amendment should be brought into force, which would make the Act more -workable.-As to the adulteration of milk, my hon. friend is aware that we have special legislation in Quebec which empowers the different towns and cities to pass by-laws on this question. The city of Montreal, for instance, has passed a by-law and almost daily in the report of the recorder's court you read items in the campaign against these offenders, against any Act, federal, provincial or municipal. They are very severely prosecuted and I do not see any reason to complain of the working of this Act. My impression is that the clause quoted by my hon. friend which enables the municipalities to take advantage of this Act, offers to those communities which are not populous enough to have a city char
ter an opportunity to pass by-laws for the proper inspection of the articles of food that are sold to the public.


George Henry Cowan: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) cannot cite a single case in which a private individual has been prosecuted to conviction, and he admits that in the absence of a fixed standard the Act is practically ineffective. The fact is that the Dominion government is playing dog in the manger. This statute does not fix the standard and should the provincial government legislate along the same lines and a prosecution be entered under the Dominion statute then the courts would say that the federal parliament having already exercised jurisdiction the provincial Act is ultra vires. This proves beyond doubt that the fixing of a standard by Dominion statute is an absolute necessity.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Does this item cover the expense of the analysis of the samples of food and of the fertilizers sent in for registration under the Act of last year?


William Templeman: When samples are sent in for registration they have already been analysed by the manufacturers, but this will cover the expense of the samples sent in by the people to be analysed at the laboratory.


John Albert Sexsmith: What progress is being made in the registration under the Act of last year?


William Templeman: Very good progress. I think most of the manufacturers are registered now and the Act will go into force by the first of the year.


George Taylor: The minister told us that when these samples are analysed and found adulterated he hands the case over to the Department of Justice. It seems to me that that is the end of it. I would like to know any manufacturer who has been prosecuted in connection with these adulterated food stuffs that are bought in the grocery stores.


William Templeman: When the chemist finishes his analysis and adulterations are found the case is sent to the Department of Justice as the hon. gentleman says.


George Taylor: And that is apparently the end of it, because I have never heard of a case where the manufacturer or the seller of adulterated food has been prosecuted. It is time that the law should be put in force. It is all nonsense to hand the case over to the Department of Justice and let it remain hung up there when the proper course would be to institute these prosecutions at once and stop the sale of these adulterated articles.
Salaries, weights and measures inspection. $76,000.


Mr. STANFIELD.: What revenue is received from the inspection of weights and measures?


William Templeman: 


John Albert Sexsmith: Sometimes people complain that they are charged too much for this inspection. What charges have the inspectors a right to make?


William Templeman: There is a fixed tariff established by order in council.


Richard Blain: Are the self-computing scales now so generally in use subject to the inspection of the department?


William Templeman: All scales that are used for buying and selling must be inspected.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is the inspector allowed to charge for the cartage of the weights from the store to the station or wherever he is going to make the test and bank again?


William Templeman: We pay all transportation charges, but the cartage charges from one store to another are borne pro rata by the different parties whose scales are inspected.


Richard Blain: I am informed that there are a great many self-computing scales in use in the country that have not been inspected by the department. I assume that a specially trained officer would be required to make a proper inspection of scales of that kind.


William Templeman: 
John Stanfield: I understand that the law is that if you own the meter you have to pay for the inspection, but if you rent the meter the company that rents it to you pays for the inspection. Is that so?


William Templeman: Yes.


John Stanfield: I would suggest that the law be changed to make the company pay for all the inspections.


William Templeman: It is the owner of the meter, whether a company or a private individual, who pays for the inspection.


George Taylor: 


John Stanfield: That is not fair to the consumer, because he buys the meter from the company.
Rent, fuel, travelling expenses, postage, stationery, &e., for gas and electric light inspection and the purchase and repairs of instruments, $25,000.


William Templeman: This is an increase of $4,000, due to the increasing number of plants all over the country. Every small town now is having its own electric light, and the expense of inspection has increased considerably. We employ only qualified electricians as inspectors.
Inspection of export of electric power, $1,500.


William Templeman: The chief electric inspector has to proceed to places where electric power is generated and make an inspection and report. He made an inspection, for instance, and spent considerable time at FoTt Francis and also at Niagara Falls.


George Taylor: Do we get any revenue from this?


William Templeman: The only revenue we get is the $50 license paid by the companies that export electricity.


George Taylor: Why should the government look after the export of electrical power without getting some profit?


William Templeman: We have had the Act several years and do not get any profit out of it.


George Taylor: These are private companies engaged in the business, and we should charge them sufficient license to cover the expense of administering the law.


William Templeman: I imagine that the object of the Act is, if deemed advisable, to restrict the export of elecric power or at all events to regulate it. We have it within cur power to give permission to export or refuse that permission, as we think best in the public interest. It is necessary that cur chief inspector should visit the different places and see what power is being developed and how much exported. We have to administer the Act and pay the expenses of adminisetering it.


Mr. GEO.: TAY'LOR. We ought to charge a higher license so that the Act will be self-sustaining and not be a drag on the country. These private companies are making money, and we certainly should make them pay a sufficient license to meet expenses. How often has the inspector to visit these places where the power-is exported?	*


William Templeman: At least once a year.


John Yeo: TAY'LOR. And does that cost $1,500?


William Templeman: No, we did not spend quite a thousand dollars last year.


George Taylor: Why then ask for $1,500?


William Templeman: The expense next year may be a little more than last.


George Taylor: Did it cost $1,000 to send an inspector once to these two places, Fort Francis and Niagara Falls?


William Templeman: And New Brunswick.


George Taylor: How long was he at each place? Did each of these three visits cost $300?


William Templeman: I am told that it took about a month altogether to make the trips.


George Taylor: He is paid a salary as well, and this is for expenses?


William Templeman: Yes, purely expenses.


George Taylor: And that officer spends $900 on travelling expenses in one month?


William Templeman: The deputy minister informs me that he made a trip to London, England, to attend the international convention of electricians, and the expenses of that trip were charged to this item.


George Taylor: What right had the minister to send an inspector to England and charge his expenses against this item? He should ask for a special vote or take it out of miscellaneous expenses. In any event there is no need to vote $1,500 this year unless the minister contemplates giving him another trip to the old country.


William Templeman: We could get along with $1,000 if it were worth while changing the estimate.


George Taylor: If the minister took a sum of money and 'gave an officer a trip to England unauthorized by parliament, we ought not to trust him with $1,500. If we deduct the trip to England, $100 each should pay the expenses to these three places.	'	.


William Templeman: The chief electrical engineer who attended the convention in London, was authorized to do so by order in council. It was a very important convention for the purpose of fixiug the standard electrical union.


George Taylor: It was all right to send him there for information, but he was not sent there in connection with the export of electrical power and his expenses should be charged to some other vote. The minister admits that his expenses will cost some $200 or $300 and is asking $1,500. The item should be Tedueed to $500 That surely should pay the cost of visiting three places in the year, one trip to each place. He is asking for money which he does not know how to spend unless by giving some officer a trip to England and charging the expenses to this vote. The council had no right to authorize this man to go to England and charge his expenses to a vote when the House did not agree to it. I move that the item be reduced to $500.


William Templeman: I frankly admit that after the explanation given me by the deputy minister and the chief electrical engineer, $1,000 will do.
Inland Revenue Department-minor revenues, $500
Interior Department - ordnance lands -
salaries and expenses, $1,655.


William Templeman: These minor revenues are collections, such as administering the Ferries Act, advertising for tenders for ferries, and printing law stamps to be used in the Yukon. The other item does not concern the Inland Revenue Department, that is revenue collected by the Interior Department.	.


George Taylor: Why are these two items mixed up?


William Templeman: I cannot explain as to the Interior Department, it is only one of the minor revenues.


George Taylor: The Minister of the Interior should make an explanation of this item. .1 do not see why the items should be mixed in this way, charging part of the expenditure of the Interior Department to the Inland Revenue Department. We had better separate them.


William Templeman: This vote has been taken for years, these items have been bracketted together, and I do not think either of them was ever discussed before.


George Taylor: We would like to know what this money was spent for, and the Minister of the Interior is not here to tell us.


Mr. PATERSON.: Then we will have to let it stand.
Customs-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,875,-
000.


George Taylor: Now I appeal to the Minister of Finance, we have done a good day's work, and it is time to adjourn. Both the leader of the opposition and the ex-minister of finance are absent, and there are very few members in the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the absence of these gentlemen indicates that they were content to let things run.


William Paterson: This is an increase-


George Taylor: I appeal to the Minister of Finance that it is time to adjourn.


William Paterson: When my hon. friend is present, nothing -will go through that should not go through. We have our officers here now, and it would be very inconvenient to if we were obliged to bring them here another day.


George Taylor: We have done a fair day's work, and owing to the absence of the leader of the opposition and the exMinister of Finance who is out of the country, I do not think that we should be asked to vote this large sum.


William Paterson: If these items don't go .through to-night they will have to wait until January.


George Taylor: You don't require this money until after the 31st of March. I again appeal to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Labour has advocated an eight hour day for the government service, and we have already passed the limit.


William Paterson: We have only passed three items to-day. But if the hon. gentleman will say that the leader of the opposition and the ex-Minister of Finance wish to be present why of course we shall have to wait.	*


George Taylor: I say that the exMinister of Finance wants to be present for all the items.


William Stevens Fielding: In that case, if my hon. friend is determined not to go on with the public business, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Some resolutions reported.


REPORT PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
First annual report of the Civil Service Commission.-Mr. Murphy.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.	.
George Taylor: If we get through private members business on Monday, will the government go on with the estimates?


William Stevens Fielding: We will continue with the ministers who were on the programme this evening for estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11 p.m.
William Stevens Fielding: Monday, December 13, 1909.