Jlr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE (Wright).

I beg to move, seconded by Mr. LaRivi&re :

That the fifth report of the Select Standing Committee to revise the debates of the House during the present session be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Before the Orders of the Day are called, J would ask the leader of the government whether lie has any further information to-day with regard to the proposed railway measure that we understand is to be brought down ? We had the assurance of the right hon. gentleman on Friday that to-day we would have notice of the proposed resolution, or a statement made as to some details of it at least. I would like to remind him that it is ten days to-day since we were told that the policy would be announced to the House last week, and at that time the right hon. gentleman fixed the early part of this week as the date at which we would be called upon to discuss the measure after it had been before us several days. The expectations of my right hon. friend given to the House on Friday last have not yet been realized. I would like to again ask whether or not we may expect an immediate announcement of this policy ? My right hon. friend blamed the members of the legal profession, who are members also of the government, I suppose, for the delay which had taken place up to Friday last. Surely there has been sufficient time since then to correct the defaults of these gentlemen, and that can hardly be alleged as an excuse at the present time.

I am glad to inform my hon. friend that I have just been informed myself within the last half hour that the lawyers have finished their work. I hope, therefore, to be able-I won't say to-day -to put a notice on the Order Paper. I have reason to believe that, if not to-day, tomorrow, will be put on the Order Paper, much to the satisfaction of my hon. friend, the notice which he has been so long looking for, and which will give me an opportunity of placing before the House the policy which we intend to present to it.

BROWN (Chateauguay) moved that Bill (158) respecting the St. Chrysostome Railway Company be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for further consideration.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Is there any explanation of this ?

Hon. Mr. FIELDING.

Mr. BROWN.

It is simply for the purpose of changing one or two of the names that appear as incorporators.

Mr. PRINGLE.

Mr. Chairman, the point was raised on Friday last as to whether this Bill could be proceeded with in the absence of the member in charge of the Bill. We are entitled to a ruling from the Speaker as to whether this Bill can be proceeded with in the absence of Mr. Dyment without the consent of the House.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

There was a motion made by the hon. member for Leeds, who is not present now, and if the committee is yet determined to go on with the motion, I shall read it:

Mr. Taylor moves that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day for the purpose of referring a point of order to the Speaker to obtain his decision upon a question referred to the House respecting the chairman's decision on Bill 104.

Perhaps some hon. memebrs are present now who were not present the other evening, and are not aware of the point involved in the motion. There are two forms of procedure in matters of this kind. The one is by way of a reference when the committee, not any member of the committee, may procure by vote a reference to the Speaker for the purpose of obtaining his opinion upon a given point. That is the procedure my hon. friend from Leeds is taking by his present motion. There is another form of procedure, which takes the form of an appeal which any individual member may take against the ruling of the chairman. The curious position we are in is this, that the hon. member appealed from the decision of the chairman, and that the appeal was taken by the usual method of the chairman leaving the Chair, the Speaker taking the Chair, and the appeal being decided by the House. Now, if we pass my hon. friend's motion as it is now presented, we shall be asking the Speaker to give his opinion upon a point which an authority higher than the Speaker has already decided, that higher authority being the House itself. When this matter was before us the other evening, those of us who differed from my hon. friend opposite, while maintaining that his motion was in order, held that it would be quite unseemly if we resolved to ask the Speaker to determine a point which in this same proceeding had already been determined by the House itself.

Mr. SPROULE.

But you will doubtless remember that when the hon. member for Leeds made his motion, he explained that

his desire was, not to appeal from the ruling of the Chair, but to have the instruction of the Speaker as to whether the point he had taken was well founded or not. He so expressed his desire in his resolution ; and, except for the fact that the word ' appeal ' was used in it, it could not carry the assumption that it was an appeal from the ruling of the Chair. That seems to be laid down very plainly in Bourinot, which says :

If it be found expedient in either House to refer a point of order to the Speaker, a member will move that the chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again that day. When the Speaker has resumed, the chairman will report that the committee wishes to be instructed as to the point in question. The House will then proceed to take the matter into consideration. land the Speaker having been requested to give his opinion, will decide the matter in dispute ; then, unless there is an appeal to the House against the Speaker's decision, the committee will resume its proceedings.

Bouriuot explains that it is very inconvenient for the House to be suddenly called to decide whether the decision of the chairman shall be confirmed or not, without hearing the argument upon the point of order ; and in order to enable the House to toe well informed on what the point of order is, the more appropriate course is to ask instructions from the House through the Speaker as to the point of order, and therefore to move that the, committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again that day, for the purpose of reporting to the Speaker the point of order raised in Com-miitee of the Whole, and having his decision upon it. There is no appeal made to the House until after the Speaker rules, and that appeal is made against the ruling [DOT]of the Speaker. So when the point of order is reported to the Speaker, and before he gives his decision upon it, it is quite in order to argue the question, so that the whole House may hear it, and the Speaker may have the benefit of the argument before he gives his ruling. After that is done, he gives his ruling. But, following the other course is obviously very inconvenient, because there is no argument upon the point of order itself, and many members of the House may be called in for the vote who have not heard the point of order either debated or raised ; but the only question put to them is : Shall the decision of the Chair be confirmed ? Now, I think it is quite plain that the more convenient and more intelligent way would be to do as is desired, ask the committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again that day, so that this question might be reported to the Speaker, and his ruling on the point of order might be obtained after a discussion had taken place upon it before1 the Speaker and before the House, and so that when an appeal were made from the Speaker, the House would be called upon to sustain the Speaker's ruling or reverse it.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.

I would just say that I have looked this matter up since

it came before the committee the other night; and on page 748 of Bouriuot, I find this :

In the chapter on public Bills, the rules in committees of the .whole anti oil the third reading are fully explained, and as these apply to private Bills-except where there is a standing order on any particular point-it is not necessary to recapitulate them here.

Turning to public Bills, I find, on page 373, the following.

One member may take charge of a public Bill in the absentee and with the permission of another member.

I infer from this that, as the same rule applies to public and private Buis, one member may take charge of a Bill in tlhe absence and with the permission of another member.