Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).

I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Galliher :

That that portion of the 16th report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines reporting the preamble of the Bill (Nio. 157) to incorporate the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company, not proven ; be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.

This Bill came up at the end of the meeting of the Railway Committee to-day and when the motion on the preamble was put by the Chairman I demanded that the yeas and nays be taken. The requisite number of members stood up, but the Chairman did not take the yeas and nays and declared the preamble lost. I consider that the Bill should go back for further consideration.

Mr. R. LEMIEUX (GaspS).

I might explain, that in the absence of the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman) I acted as Chairman of the Railway Committee this morning. The question was put to the committee whether the preamble should be adopted or not on three different occasions

and each time the committee answered almost unanimously against the preamble. At the request of my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) I asked the gentlemen who were in the committee to rise for and against the preamble. Five members were in favour of the preamble and fifteen against. Then the hon. gentleman asked that the yeas and nays be taken. One o'clock sounded and I declared the preamble lost. I suggested to the hon. gentleman that the yeas and nays be taken as the members would rise from their seats, because I would have to call the whole list otherwise, which I thought was not necessary. The sentiment of the committee was taken and it was nearly unanimously against the preamble.

Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Yale).

I may say that I was one of the live who stood up in favour of the preamble. The facts are as stated by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) who was Chairman of the committee, but in seconding the motion I may say that if my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) thinks that some-I would hardly call it injustice has been done him-if he thinks it would be fairer to him to take the yeas and nays in the usual way I do not see any objection to that being done. I am bound to say that the feeling of the committee seemed to be against the Bill at the time, but nevertheless I think that the Bill should be referred back in order that it may receive the usual treatment.

Mr. D. HENDERSON (Halton).

From the moment this Bill was introduced in the committee the sentiment of the members was clearly against it. No attempt was made by the promoter of the Bill to show that there was any probability of the road being constructed. The clause describing the route was so badly worded that it was impossible for the members of the committee to determine where at least one branch of the road was intended to be run. The Chairman of the committee has stated the case very fairly. There was a clear response from the committee in the ordinary way signifying nay to the preamble. As the Chairman of the committee has stated only five members rose in favour of it and fifteen in opposition. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) no doubt did ask for the yeas and nays, and the Chairman of the committee fairly offered to have the yeas and nays taken in the way he has described-not in the usual way, by calling the roll, and each man responding for himself, but by asking those who were in favour of the preamble to stand up, and the clerk would record their names, intending then to ask those who were opposed to the preamble to rise in order that their names might be recorded by the clerk, just as a vote in this chamber is recorded by the clerk of the House. This would have saved considerable time, as it could have been Mr. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).

done much more quickly-the hour of one o'clock having nearly arrived-than calling a roll of 150 or 160 names, the greater majority of whom were absent. To my mind the committee expressed its opinion, and expressed it very decidedly as being opposed to the granting of this charter, and I see no reason for asking that the Bill be referred back any more than any other Bill which had not received the approval of the Railway Committee. I consider that the Chairman of the committee acted with all fairness to the promoter of the Bill, and the yeas and nays would have been recorded in the manner I have indicated had not the hon. member for Saskatchewan himself decidedly objected.

Mr. DAVIS.

I suppose I may have a word in closing this discussion. As to the merits of the Bill, I do not think they are before us at the present time, although the hon. gentleman has seen fit to go into them. The case is this. The chairman of the committee seems to have got it into his head that it is a standing rule that the committee should adjourn at one o'clock. So far as I know, there is no such rule at all, and when I asked for the yeas and nays I think I had a right to do so ; and I now ask that the Bill be sent back, because of its not having been fairly treated in that respect.

Mr. SPROULE.

Explain. '

This is the'Bill founded on the resolution which passed the House the other night.

In the absence of the hon.-the Postmaster General, I move for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 20S) to amend the Post Office Act.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE.

Explain it.

The Bill deals with the salaries of certain officials of the department, and also provides for reducing the postage on newspapers.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Should not this Bill be introduced by a resolution ?

That

would have to be determined after we knew

the contents of the Bill. A Bill referring to salaries need not necessarily be a money Bill. It need not be of any avail unless parliament provides the money. It is like an amendment to the Civil Service Act, which does not require to be preceded by a resolution.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

If it is for a reduction of salaries, I do not think it would require a resolution.

Before the second reading we will see as to that.