Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

I see my hon. friend from St. James division (Mr. Gervais) Chairman of the Debates Committee, is here to-day, so I will now present the motion which I placed in your hands two days ago regarding the fourth report of the Debates Committee. I moved at that time :

That the resolution adopted by this House on the 20th of May last adopting the fourth report of the committee appointed to supervise the official debates of the House, be reconsidered and rescinded: that the said fourth report of the said committee be referred back to said committee with instructions to inquire into the necessity of and demand for said additional translator, and the qualifications of said E. Charlier to act as such translator and to be appointed to such new position, and to inquire also as to such additional measures as may be necessary to ensure the prompt and efficient translation of the official documents of this House.

I would just say, in support of this motion that there is no doubt-I fancy the House does not doubt-that such a motion can be made. I quote from page 452 of Bourinot's parliamentary procedure, 3rd edition :

Circumstances, however, may arise to render it necessary that the Honse should reconsider its previous judgment on a question, and in that case there are means afforded hy the practice of parliament of again considering the matter. Orders of the House are frequently discharged and resolutions rescinded. The latter part of the thirteenth rule of the House of Commons provides: ' No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose that such vote be rescinded.'

Now, in regard to this particular report, the motion was made by my hon. friend the chairman of the committee on May 20tli. Some discussion arose concerning the matter on the following day, May 21st. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said at that time :

That was a good reason and it is only for that reason. It is fair to the, chairman of the committee to say that the report of the committee which was adopted yesterday was not open to the same objection as the report which was presented a few days ago.

Mr. FOSTER.

Does not yesterday s report involve a charge on the revenue?

Mr. FIELDING.

No; the chairman of the committee told me of the report yesterday before it was presented and I said at once: Are you proposing to increase any salaries. He said, No; we are proposing to fill a vacancy, this adds nothing to the expenditure; and I said: If that is the case the objection which was taken before would not apply, and the assurance was given me that it was not a proposal to create any new vacancy or to create any increase in salary.

Mr. FOSTER.

But it adds to the expenditure?

Mr. FIELDING.

The information given me was that it was to fill a vacancy.

On the same day, my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) who, I believe, is a member of the committee said ;

The statement of the Finance Minister shows how useful and necessary it is to discuss these matters. Mv hon. friend the Minister of Finance is entirely mistaken in his understanding of what was said to him. Thero is no doubt that the report of the committee yesterday created a new office and a new expense. it was to appoint a new employee altogether and that at a certain salary, and that is the report which was adopted.

And my right hon. friend the Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier said :

When the report was brought in I inquired from the chairman of the committee and I

understood from him that the report did not involve any new charge on the revenue, hut simply filled a vacancy, and I understood under such circumstances there would he no objection at all. I may say to my hon. friend and to the House that if the good faith of anybody has been infringed upon, we will reconsider it. I do not want to have the matter passed in that way. There is no reason why this report should not be debated if it is to be debated at all.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said, further :

Lest I should mislead the House, I want to say at once that I have not the slightest doubt that the chairman of the committee acted in good faith, but from what he said I certainly did understand that this was . not creating any new office, but filling a vacancy.

And the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in that debate, said :

I most certainly would like to discuss the matter of adding translators before the report goes through, and 1 think the suggestion made by the Prime Minister should be carried out, to have this report reconsidered and committed to the House to be discussed when the next report comes up.

In answer to which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said :

I would not like to take this position to-day in the absence of the chairman of the committee, but, certainly, if there is not a proper understanding of the report, there is room for explanation.

There are other references to this report a little later on, I think. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have shown that the report was adopted hastily and under a misunderstanding for there is no doubt whatever that it involves au additional charge upon the revenue, as it calls for a salary of $2,000 a year.- Under these circumstances, I think it is a case which would call for the rescinding of the resolution and recommittal of the report of the committee in order that the committee should fully investigate Ihe matter as set out in the resolution which l have had the honour to present. I do not, for a single moment, suppose that my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais), the chairman of the committee, intended to mislead the House- nothing is further from my idea-It is merely one of those cases where, in the haste of the business of the House towards the close of the session, such things may occur without any fault being imputable to anybody.

I mentioned this matter to my hon friend (Mr. Gervais) this morning, and suggested to him the propriety of allowing this motion to go through in order that the committee might reconsider the question, as it has evidently been a matter of surprise. My hon. friend did not seem to see the advisability of doing that. Had he agreed to my suggestion, that would have dispensed with the necessity of my calling in question the qualifications of the man whose appoint-Mr. MONK.

ment has been recommended in the report adopted by the House. My information is that Mr. Chariier has been convicted before a criminal court of libel and sentenced to imprisonment and then released on ticket of leave. That alone is a grave enough matter for re-investigation by the committee upon his appointment. He is at present under accusation of blackmail. There is an indictment and the jury in the first trial has disagreed. I do not wish to insist on these two points, but in view of the attitude of the chairman of the committee, I thought I should mention them to the House, and it seems to me these are conclusive reasons why tile report should he sent back to the committee, in order that the whole matter may be investigated.

Mr. H. GERVAIS (Montreal, St. James).

The scope of the motion which has been moved by the hon. gentleman for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is wider than that of the report which was presented by the Debates Committee and adopted by this House. There are before this House two reports, one in relation to the increase of salaries of the official reporters, another with regard to the reorganization of the translation bureau in order to provide that the French edition of the ' Hansard ' should be published within twenty-four hours after the Bnglisli edition; and now the hon. gentleman wants to have the fourth report of the committee sent back to the Debates Committee for the purpose of making further inquiry in regard to the qualification of one of the appointees, Mr. Char]ier. Let me call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that nothing was said against another of the appointees, Mr. Girard, whose engagement is also mentioned in that fourth report.

Now I will deal one by one with the objections the hon. gentleman has made to this report. With regard to the regularity of the report, I may say that the meeting of the Debates Committee which recommended the appointment of Mr. Girard as proof-reader, and of Mr. Charlier as translator, was convened in the usual way, proper notice having been given to each of the members of the committee. When the meeting was called to order, there was a quorum present. The resolution was passed unanimously. I never complained of any resolution which has been passed in this House when I was absent therefrom.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

Did not one of the members vote nay on the appointment ?

Mr. GERVAIS.

Yes, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) did, at the end. I think the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) moved the resolution for the appointment of Mr. Girard and Mr. Charlier.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES.

And the member for Leeds opposed it.

Mr. GERVAIS.

Yes, but in such a way that we considered that the report was unanimously adopted by the committee. Everything was done correctly, according to the rules of parliamentary committees, and according to the regulations and rules of this House. On the same day, when the report was read to the House, no objection was taken to it. Then when the motion was made for concurrence nothing was said against the report, and the report was concurred in by and in virtue of rule 32 of the rules and orders governing the procedure of the House of Commons, and reading as follows :

A motion may be made by unanimous consent to the House without previous notice.

This was done by the unanimous consent of the House, in accordance with the rules of parliament which we have adopted from the British parliament. The moment the British parliament unanimously passes a motion it becomes the law of the land. By unanimous consent the British parliament may repeal the Magna Charta if they wish, providing it is the parliament sitting on the Thames embankment, because no other British house being sovereign could repeal such a law as the Magna Charta. But the moment the Sovereign parliament of England pass any law, unanimously, nothing can come into conflict with it. This resolution, as I say, for concurrence in the report of the Debates Committee, was passed unanimously. Some of the members may have been absent, but the government benches were occupied by ministers of the Crown, and no objection was made to the adoption of the report. I may say that before the House opened I showed that report to ministers of the Crown, and nothing was said against it, because nothing could be said against it. If anybody had raised his finger against the passing of that resolution, the report could not have been concurred in. Now, Mr. Speaker, to show the soundness of my contention that the Debates Committee was entitled and is still entitled to make recommendations for salaries, for increase of salaries, and so forth, X wiH quote a few precedents. Since as far back as 1880 it has been the constant practice of this House of Commons to accept the recommendations of the Debates Committee, both as regards new salaries and increases of salaries, and those recommendations, when confirmed by this House, have been the laws of the land, and have been carried into full execution. In 1880 the staff of official reporters and translators was appointed by the House upon a recommendation made by the Debates Committee, reading as follows :

The Debates Committee recommended; That six reporters be engaged and recognized as officers of the House, subject to such recommendations as may from time to time be enacted by the Commission of Internal Economy

of the House or by the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the official reports of the Debates of the House.

The salaries recommended were, chief reporter $1,500; reporters $1,000 ; assistant to chief reporter $500.

In 1884, as may be seen by the journals of the House, pages 267 and 285, another report was presented to the House, recommending an increase of salaries, including the chief, to $2,000. The report was made on March 21st and concurred in on March 26. Then on the 13th of July, 1905, the Debates Committee presented their sixth report, reading as follows ;

Your committee recommends:

1. That the salary of $2,000 per annum at present paid to each member of the staff of official reporters of the debates, be increased to $2,500.

2. That the salary of $1,200 per annum now paid to Mr. Charles W. Boyce, assistant to the chief reporter, be increased to $1,500.

In 1903 there had been some other increases of salaries and some new salaries recommended and confirmed by the House, which went into effect without objection. Therefore I say that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier cannot now raise any objection as it is in the exclusive province of the government to object to increases of expenditure for salaries, and to say that the Debates Committee has been encroaching upon this right of the Crown. As a matter of fact, that fourth report did create a small expenditure, but it was the privilege of the government exclusively to raise any objection and therefore the objection taken on that ground by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is not well founded. According to the third edition of Bourinot, edited by Dr. Flint, it is within the province of the Debates Committee to recommend new salaries, increases in salaries, &c., and these recommendations, when approved by the House, have to be accepted by all parties concerned.

With regard to the question of the reorganization and improvement of the translation bureau or of the official reporters' bureau, I may say that there is a report now before this House, the third report of the Debates Committee, and all the objections which are being raised now by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier will be properly ventilated in due course. The hou. member is trying to raise a debate with regard to a proposed improvement of the translation bureau which question will be properly debated when the third report of the Debates Committee comes before the House for concurrence. On that ground also I take objection and I say that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is not in order when he moves that the fourth report of the Debates Committee be referred back and tries at the same time to debate the third report of the com-

Mr. MONK.

Does my hon. friend suggest that I should go to Constantinople ?

Mr. GERVAIS.

Well, let the hon. gentleman remain in Canada and I will show him that he had more to do with Mr. Charlier than anybody in both Houses of parliament. Do you recall the fact that when M. Cresse, Iv.C., ex-mayor Laporte, Mr. R. Bickerdike, and M. Catelli, your great friend, and you met in M. Cresse's office to organize an international committee for the establishment of a commercial treaty between Italy and Canada-that Mr. Charlier was appointed secretary of such committee. Do you remember that you asked Mr. Charlier to establish a newspaper for your party?

Mr. MONK.

I would like to state to the hon. gentleman that I do not know the gentleman.

Sir. GERVAIS.

Have you ever seen Sir. Charlier in your office on St. Francois Xavier Street ?

Mr. SIONK.

I do not remember.

Sir. SPEAKER.

Order. Hon. members must address the chair.

Sir. GERVAIS.

I do not want to be interrupted because I have to finish my work of showing that Sir. Charlier has been highly appreciated in both South America and France, that he has received a first class education, that he is a French scholar and that he knows more about foreign languages than anybody in my country. Then let me say to the House that when Sir. Charlier was apointed general secretary of that great international committee for the purpose of securing a treaty of commerce between Italy and Canada, he was so appointed because he was perfectly familiar with the Italian language which my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier knows, I confess, very well, too. That was one of the qualifications for which my hon. friend accepted Sir. Charlier as secretary of that international committee. When, I may say that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, having read some articles written in the ' Journal de Geneve ' by Sir. Charlier, said, to his bosom Friend, Sir. Charles Auguste Corneillier :

* Show me the oyster in which you found such a pearl.' It is clear that the hon. member (Sir. Slonk) did not have the same opinion of Sir. Charlier as he now holds. Some ten years ago when Sir. Charlier was preparing a pamphlet for the so-called municipal reform league in Slontreal the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) highly valued the competency of Sir. Charlier as a linguist. I might quote letters to show that Sir. Charlier is highly appreciated by men having a universal reputation in the world of science and letters. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has lived in Italy for some years and he knows the Ro-docanachi family. This family name is well known in Austria, Italy, England and France, and it includes amongst its members quite a number of scientists and men of letters. I have here a certificate as to Sir. Charlier's ability dated April 20, 1889, and written by E. Rodocanachi, Greek consul at Leghorn. I have here another certificate to the same effect from Viscount F. Fig-ueiredo, Rio de Janeiro. These certificates are sufficient to show that Sir. Charlier is a man of repute in literature and a man quite competent to do the work of translating.

Let me refresh the memory of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier by asking him if it was not one of the aims of the international committee to establish a treaty between Canada and Italy, to encourage the importation into Canada of such goods as olive oil, wines, material for making cement,

pozzolane and what Sir. Cresse styled piles gum.

Sir. MONK.

I would say to my hon. friend that I never heard of this committee. All this is new to me.

Sir. GERVAIS.

Were you not at one of the meetings?