I move that the third amendment be concurred in. The third amendment is purely verbal; it is substituting the word ' resignation ' for the word ' retirement.'

Mr. GOURLEY.

I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that our statutes of Canada are not creditable; the clauses of statutes dealing with the same subject are different in lang-guage in almost every instance. That is not right, because it puts a counsel or an individual who wants to understand a statute to the necessity of interpreting each line of every statute, whereas if we had statutes divided into classes, and the sections of statutes dealing with the same subject couched in exactly the same language, this would be avoided. There ought not to be a comma different. Any one who is familiar with the construction of statutes knows that it is one of the nicest occupations to which a man can giv'e his attention, requiring not only a clear comprehension of language, but also an appreciation of the niceties of grammatical construction and the construction of sentences. I may say that attention has been brought to this matter by Judge Wea-therby in Nova Scotia, a man of splendid intellect, although he is rather erratic ; he has one of the most perfectly analytical minds that you can meet with. It is a pleasure to hear him interpret a statute, I have been very often pained to hear him take one of our Dominion statutes and tear it all to pieces and express wonder if we have any law officer in Ottawa who knows anything about law or anything else. I must say that I concur in a great deal of what he says, and I believe we should attempt to do what they do in England, have every statute and every section of a statute dealing with the same subject couched in exactly the same language.

Mr. FRASER.

I am afraid that my hon. friend is giving too high praise to English statutes. I notice that the judges there speak quite sarcastically of the English statutes.

' Mr. GOURLEY. The late Lord Thring did a great deal to cure that. I am inclined to believe that there is more accuracy and nicety of expression in the English statutes than in our own, although the House will agree that I am not inclined to unduly praise the English.

Mr. GALLIHER.

The Americans are your friends.

Mr. GOURLEY.

They do not pretend to accuracy of language there. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that in these acts of incorporation which we are constantly passing, clauses conferring certain powers should be kept exactly the same in every case and that no man drafting an Act should be permitted to alter the language to the extent of a comma. Therefore I think this is a very important section, that we should have good draughtsmen ; we might have a very good lawyer who might not be a good draughtsman, as they are different gifts.

Absolutely.

Mr. GOURLEY.

A man might be able to tear an Act to pieces but to have a Bill properly drafted requires the knack of using language to express an idea nicely. That is a gift, and if it does not appear in a statute it makes that statute hopeless of construction. I hope the Minister of Justice will impress on the commission the fact that the Acts of this parliament should be expressive of the very nicest intentions of parliament in the most apt English. I intend to assist the Minister of Justice as much as I can in having our statutes put in the fewest possible words. This habit of using many words is a loose, unscholarly habit. A man who is not a scholar is eternally using a lot of words when a few would be sufficient. If you make a long sentence in a statute, you only involve it. and you leave it doubtful how a court will interpret it. I saw a judge the other day take a section of a statute and re-write it to show the exact meaning of the language, and the meaning which the legislature evidently meant it to convey, and the two things were as different as night and day. The members of this House should be scholars enough to be able to express their meaning in the clearest and most concise language, so that no judge could have any doubt about it.

On section 12,

Mr. COCHRANE.

What does that clause mean ?

That is taken from a corresponding section of the Act respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada, which was passed in connection with the revision of 1886. If we were to distribute the Revised Statutes, as we now distribute the ordinary statutes, that would entail very large expenditure. The statutes are now distributed to the members of this parliament and the local legislatures and to all the magistrates.

Mr. GOURLEY.

When will they be distributed ?

There are 154 statutes for revision, of which 48 have

been revised. Each commissioner is given several statutes to revise, then they meet every three or four months and revise the work of each, and the whole is subject to the control of the chairman, the ex-chief justice of the Supreme Court, who is probably the most competent man in Canada. I hope that within the next year all the work will be done.

Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

Mr. SPROULE.

Is this not a money Bill ?

Not in the strict sense of the word.

Mr. SPROULE.

It provides for salaries to be paid out of consolidated revenue.