June 30, 1908


Bill (No. 195) to incorporate the Waterloo and Guelph Railway Company.-Mr. Brown. Bill (No. 196) for the relief of Arthur James Townsend.-Mr. Copp.


House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Graham, for the third reading of Bill (No. 118) to amend the Railway Act with respect to telegraphs and telephones, and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Northrup thereto.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the motion for the tfiird reading of this Bill was adjourned two weeks ago with the statement by the hon. gentleman who has moved the amendment (Mr. Northrup) that, in his view, it would be desirable that I Should make some further remarks in reference to the scope of the legislation proposed by the Bill and the amendment. I had already, when this Bill was in committee two weeks ago to-day, expressed the views I entertained of the proposition which the hon. gentleman had made, but he thought he had not apprehended correctly the circumstances of the particular case in which he is interested, and that I was not appreciating the importance of the amendment he was proposing as applied to the circumstances of that case. I was speaking at that time with nothing to rely upon but my memory of what the hon. gentleman had said with reference to this matter early in February last, but since then I have taken occasion to read again, and to read with care, the observations which the hon. member for East Hastings made on the 10th February last in reference to this matter, and after having read again these remarks of my hon. friend, I am quite unable to understand in what respect it is that my hon. friend thinks my memory was at fault, or that I failed to appreciate the point he was endeavouring to make with regard to the particular company in which he has interest and the subsidy paid to it. I have substantially nothing to add to the remarks I made in committee with reference to this matter two weeks ago, certainly nothing of value. The matter presented by my hon. friend seems to me today exactly as it seemed to me then-a proposition to apply to the facts of a particular case, not a remedy so much as the creating of a new right of action. The proposition made by my hon. friend in this amendment is not limited to the special ease in hand, but is simply a proposition that in every case in which any railway company has taken over the line of another railway company, although there has been at the time of such taking over no charge or encumbrance whatever upon the line so taken over, the company which does so take over the line would be liable to make good any obligations which might rest upon

the other company In the way of operating the line so taken over. That would manifestly be to create a new right of action, a new claim, new obligations upon the company which so takes over the line of a company which is under an obligation of some character as to the operating of that line. It is not any mere new remedy that my hon. friend is proposing, but something of a much more radical character.

In that view it seems to me the proposition is one that ought not to commend itself to the House. The clause under consideration is a clause not giving any new cause of action to any person but simply giving a new remedy by application to the Board of Railway Commissioners. If any railway company has entered into an obligation and made a breach of that obligation it is liable to be pursued in au action for the recovery of damages. That liability to an action for payment of the damages caused by its breach of obligation is not touched in any way by the legislation now under consideration. That is a liability in the ordinary courts of the country and that liability will remain exactly as it has existed ever since courts were established, without reference to whether or not the clause in the Bill now under consideration becomes law. If the clause is passed it will afford a new remedy for such a breach of obligation. The person who suffers by reason of that breach of obligation, will not as at present be restricted to a suit to recover damages, but he may resort to the Board of Railway Commissioners under the provision in question and ask that the contract which he complains has been broken should be specifically performed by the company on which the obligation to perform it rests. That I take it is substantially the full scope of the legislation which is proposed by the Minister of Railways. It Is simply applying a new remedy for breaches of contract on the part of companies under some obligation to do some certain thing. To that, my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr! Northrop) wants to add what I have described as something which is to create an entirely new sort of obligation and to impose that obligation not upon the company which has undertaken it, but upon some other company to which the undertaking company has transferred its property. To my mind that would be an altogether dangerous and inadvisable thing to do. In the remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. Northrop) when this clause was last under consideration on the 17th instant, he seemed to put his case upon what to my mind was a new ground; a ground which if he had indicated previously he had at all events not at ail emphasized or made the strong point In his case; the ground, namely: That in this instance the money paid by way of subsidy had been fraudulently obtained.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)




He puts it very strongly and very distinctly as a case in which according to his view:

The Grand Trunk Railway Company have fraudulently, and I use the word advisedly, obtained $21,000 of the money of the people of this country.

He proceeds to say that so long as the Minister of Railways and the Prime Minister have not plainly refused to take steps to recover the money of this country ' thus obtained by fraud ' they may possibly be said to be free from blame. He says : This wrong ought to be righted, and he con-eludes his remarks by saying:

I think that if the Grand Trunk obtained money under the circumstances the government is entitled to get it back.

So that he puts the matter before the House as one in which the money of the government had been paid to the Grand Trunk Railway Company under some fraudulent representation of that company and therefore that the company ought to be compelled to pay it back. If my hon. friend rests the particular case in which he is interested upon this ground, it is surely manifest that he does not need the amendment which he proposes. Such a claim resting not upon breach of contract but upon deceit or fraud would be an ordinary money claim which could be pursued in the ordinary courts of the country and which would result if successful in simply a judgment for the payment of a certain amount of money. Such a judgment the courts are in a position to pronounce without the proposed legislation, and the proposed legislation of my hon. friend the minister does not interfere with or touch in any way the right of the courts to adjudicate upon any such claims that may be brought before them. My hon. friend (Mr. Northrop) needs nothing more in that regard, and it seems to me it would be entirely a breach of the analogy which up to this point has always obtained with regard to the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, if we were to impose upon them any obligation to inquire into a cause of action of that character. The Board of Railway Commissioners at the present time deals not with actions for wrongs but with actions or claims for breaches of contract. If an accident takes place upon a railway and a claim arises by reason of the negligence of the company or of its servants, that claim is not pursued before the Board of Railway Commissioners, but before the ordinary tribunals of the land; and so exactly, if this claim rests, as my hon. friend now puts it, upon what he calls the fraud of the Grand Trunk Railway Company it is one which ought not to be followed, as I submit, before the Board of Railway Commissioners, but in the ordinary courts. How-

ever, the facts of this particular case as detailed to the House by my hon. friend in February last seem at once to demonstrate that the claim which is being urged on the part of the hon. gentleman does not have the character which he now represents. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the salient facts of the case as then presented by my bon. friend. The Belleville and North Hastings Kailway Company lost its identity in the year 1882 on being absorbed by the Grand Junction Railway Company and with other companies amalgamated into a company called the Midland Railway of Canada. That amalgamation was carried out by a public Act of the Ontario legislature. It was upon the statute-books of the province as well as being a matter of no inconsiderable notoriety especially in the locality where this Belleville and North Hastings Railway line was built. Three years later, and only three, in the year 1885 this parliament granted a subsidy to that line. Now, at that time the constituency of North Hastings in which this line to which the subsidy was granted was built, was represented in this House of Commons by a distinguished gentleman who was a member of the cabinet of that day and who must have been perfectly conversant with the circumstance that only three years before the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company had been by Act of the Ontario legislature amalgamated with and made'to form part of the Midland Railway. And notwithstanding that public knowledge in regard to it, it is incredible that the parliament of Canada in 1885 was entirely ignorant when it did see fit to grant this subsidy to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway.

That was repeated in 1880 by an additional subsidy grant, and nothing is said in either of those subsidy Acts about operating the line. In each the subsidy is to be paid upon the construction of the line. The construction of the line is that which was to earn the subsidy. It is not disputed that the line was completely constructed, and the complaint to-day is simply that since then it has ceased to be operated. What took place ? These subsidy Acts having been passed in 1885 and 1886, making the subsidy payable to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway, application was made for the payment in 1887. While the matter was still fresh in memory, while the same hon. gentleman I have alluded to (Sir Mackenzie Bowell) was still representing North Hastings, that application was made, not secretly or deceitfully, but openly, by Mr. William Wainwright, a gentleman well known as an official connected with the Grand Trunk Railway. He made the application in October, 1887 for payment of this subsidy pursuant to the Act of parliament. A subsidy contract followed, prepared no doubt by the Department of Railways and Canals, and containing the contract by the government to pay the amount

of that subsidy to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company. The subsidy contract followed the subsidy Act, as no doubt was necessary, but it was an obligation by the Crown, as represented by the government of that day, to pay this money voted by parliament to a company which my hon. friend complains had five years previously gone out of existence. Whether it had gone out of existence technically speaking or not, its identity had been merged into that of the Midland Railway of Canada, a company perfectly well known to the law and to every business man in the community at that time; and when we have, as we have in this case, a contract made in 1887 to pay to a company, which five years before had been merged by Act of parliament in the Midland Railway,

I am not able to understand upon what ground my hon. friend contends today, twenty years afterwards, that this money was obtained by some manner of deceit or fraud. The money having been applied for and having been reported by the officials of the Railway Department as having been earned, and a certificate having been given by the chief engineer of the government that the road was in good running condition and that its rolling stock had been provided by the Grand Trunk Railway, an order in council for the payment of the money was passed in 1878; and in January, 1889, $21,888 was paid by cheque issued to the order of the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company. That was no doubt the only payee which, according to the statutes granting the subsidy and according to the contract for payment of that subsidy, was entitled to receive this subsidy money. The cheque was isued payable to the order of the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company. It was endorsed by the officials of that company over to the Grand Trunk Railway, it is true, but the legal effect is not different in any respect from that which would have followed if this money had been taken by the officials of the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company out of the Bank in cash and then handed over to the officials of the Grand Trunk Railway or deposited to the credit of that company, in its bank. My view is that the money having been made payable to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company and the cheque having been endorsed by the officials of that company, the payment was legally made to that company. What that company did with the money, after it received it, is something with which this government or parliament has no concern. If there was any wrong, that wrong ^Was when, with knowledge of the facts-which it must be presumed this parliament had in 1885-this parliament passed its statute making this subsidy payable, not upon the operation of the road at all, but upon the

construction of the line, and made that money payable in terms to the Belleville and North Hastings Railway Company, although that company had ceased to exist some three years before. In these circumstances it seems to me, upon the best consideration I have been able to give the matter, that no claim for the repayment of the money exists ; and what my hon. friend seeks by his amendment is to create a right of action which would not otherwise exist, and to place that right of action, not in the courts of the land, but in the Board of Railway Commissioners, notwithstanding the fact that up to the present the jurisdiction exercised by that board does not apply to claims of that character but only to claims of breach of contract. In these circumstances, I must oppose the proposition of my hon. friend to amend the Bill in the manner he suggests.


Edward Arthur Lancaster

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).

In saying that I support the amendment of the hon. gentleman from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), I must declare at the outset that it goes a great deal further than one would imagine from the speech we have just heard. One would apprehend, listening to the Minister of Justice, that the amendment was entirely aimed at the one particular, isolated case which the Minister of Justice has so ably defended on behalf of the Grand Trunk Railway. At the outset I must remark that the amendment of my hon. friend from East Hastings is a proper amendment because it does not particularize between the kind of matters where wrong is done by a railway company either against the Crown or a municipality or other corporation, regarding which the section of the Bill it is proposed to amend does particularize. I wish to say a word in regard to the effect of the two different sections-the one of the Minister of Railways as compared with the one sought to be substituted for it by the hon. member for East Hastings. Whether the amendment does or does not reach the isolated case discussed by the Minister of Justice, it certainly does reach a class of cases in which this parliament should take care to protect the interests of the people. The amendments are rather long, as they have to be, to cover the matter sought to be dealt with ; but if one will look at subsection 8 of the Bill brought in by the minister and at 26a in part 2 of the same Bill which my hon. friend from East Hastings is seeking to amend, one will see at once that while both parties realize the necessity of protecting the people in regard to these matters by allowing a specific performance to be sued for before the Railway Commission,for some unaccountable reason the section, as drawn by the minister, deals with a very few of that class of cases and absolutely excludes by its particularizing the majority of cases which the commission ought to deal with, Mr. AYLESWORTH.

if we are to recognize its right to deal with such cases at all.

The amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) commends itself to me because It does not distinguish between classes of grievances, and once you recognize that there should be specific performance in regard to any contracts made by the people with railways I say it is not right that we should particularize in the extraordinary and particular way we would if we accepted the section as proposed by the Minister of Railways. What it says is that matters of construction, alteration, installation, operation, use or maintenance by the company or by such municipal or other corporation or person can be dealt with, but they must all relate to any structure, appliance, works, renewals or repairs. Thus if there is a matter which does not relate to these particular things it is not dealt with by the Bill. One would think to hear the Minister of Railways that the word ' operation ' covered all sorts of operations, and that any matter, such as tolls, rates and fares would come under that as a question of operation. If it was sought to draw a Bill which would cause the people to think they were getting a chance to have their grievances remedied by specific performance by means of the Railway Commission, and at the same time give them almost nothing, it is skilfully drawn, but if it is intended to afford a specific remedy and to enable the people to secure redress of grievances, we must have the amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). All questions of operation are dealt with by this amendment. The minister the other day said he was afraid of loading the commission up with too much work. That might be an objection to both amendments, but if it is his objection to the amendment of Mr. Northrup, he ought to withdraw his own amendment, because by it he is placing a certain class of contracts before the commission for decision. The only difference between the two in this respect would be that the amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) would give the commission more work as it covers all cases. The Minister of Railways said that my hon. friend's amendment by its wording was limited to special cases and was not general enough. The amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings is to cover al! cases of breach of contract to which full justice cannot be done-by an action for damages or in which an action for damage, for some reason, would not be a proper remedy. It would apply in all cases, and, therefore, it is the general amendment, and that of the Minister of Railways is a specific one relating only to certain isolated cases of a limited character.

As I understood the Minister of Justice he said that because the government of

that day was imposed upon and paid money it ought not to have paid, therefore the person wrongfully receiving the money should be entitled to get away with it. That is a proposition which no court would hold as between two subjects of the Crown, and I am astonished to hear the Minister of Justice say it is a good answer as against the government. If the government of that day were imposed upon by anybody, as the Minister of Justice tacitly admits, surely that is no reason that the succeeding government, knowing that its predecessor had been imposed upon and that there is at least a suspicion of fraud, should refuse to allow this matter to go before the Railway Commission for investi-agtion. What harm in the world could that do ? One would think from the argument of the Minister of Justice that the amendment of the hon. member for Bast Hastings (Mr. Northrup) amounted to a decision that this money must be paid back by the Grand Trunk. It looks to me as if it should, but that is not the amendment. The amendment is that the matter should be investigated, and why does the Minister of Justice, of all people, not want an investigation in regard to money which it is alleged was wrongfully or fraudulently obtained from the government by some officers of the Grand Trunk Railway Company ?

The amendment of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) in so far as it mav affect that case does not go further than to authorize this Railway Commission to investigate, and, if they come to the conclusion that something is necessary to be done-if, for instance, instead of giving damages, as said by the Minister of Justice, to order specific performance more or less of some other terms of the contract-they could provide a remedy for the grievance of the people of that county. But the fact is clear, from the speech of the Minister of Justice himself, that $21,000 was wrongly obtained, and I cannot hear the Minister of Justice say that, without raising my protest against leaving that grievance without a remedy. For, as I have said, we are not asked to decide that this money shall be paid back, but, we are asked to vote for an amendment which will have the effect of allowing the Railway Commission, as a coroner's jury would do, to investigate the circumstances, find out what is the trouble and make any report they please. It is probable that, after investigation, in view of the statements made before the House, it would be found to be the government's duty to bring action against the Grand Trunk Railway to return the money. The hon. member for East Hastings has not the ear of the Governor General at present. He may have in a month or two. But, as it is, he has to appeal to this government. All that the amendment will accomplish is to provide for a full investigation and the making of a report upon which, probably,

some action could be taken. For these reasons, I have no hesitation in voting for the amendment of the' hon. member for East Hastings.


William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).

With the consent of the House, as I moved the amendment, I wish to speak a few words in reply.


Robert Franklin Sutherland (Speaker of the House of Commons)



It can only be by consent of the House. This is an amendment, and there is no right of reply.


William Barton Northrup

Conservative (1867-1942)


The minister does not object, and I take it that I have the consent of the House. I would call attention to the exact position in which this amendment stands. In a railway Bill brought down by the government is a clause providing that, under certain circumstances, the Crown or a municipality, can apply to the Board of Railway Commissioners in order to have enforced certain agreements, which agreements, however, are confined entirely to those affecting minor matters of detail in connection with the management or operation oif the road. By the amendment which I have moved, the right of the Crown and of municipalities is precisely the same as that given by the original clause, except that it goes one step further and allows these applications to be made touching the important question of the operation of the road. The amendment is exactly along the line of the government clause, except that, whereas they are-to use their own expression-loading up the commission with many minor matters of trivial import, the amendment would allow the commissioners to deal with so important a matter as an agreement for the actual operation of the road. In one other respect, and in one only, does the amendment go beyond the clause of the Minister of Railways. The clause of the Minister of Railways is confined to cases which arise between municipalities or the Crown on one side and the road which obtains the assistance for operating the railway ; the amendment proposed by me goes a step further and provides that, in case an agreement of the kind above referred to is made with a railway, and subsequently that railway parts with its property, inasmuch as the Crown or municipality is helpless in the way of obtaining relief from the road which received that assistance, then the railway which has acquired the property shall be made liable for the contract of its predecessor, and that, under these circumstances, in order that justice may be done, the Crown or the municipality may apply to the Railway Board, which board shall have power to make such order as seems just to them. So that the amendment, instead of creating a new obligation, as the Minister of Justice says, merely creates a new mode of procedure in allowing the application to be made to the Board of Railway Commissioners and allowing that board to do justice in the case. It happens that,

in showing the necessity of this amendment, I gave a case in point, a case to which this amendment would apply, but given only as an illustration to show the necessity of some amendment of the law. It is admitted by the government that the law is defective, and that, in one case at least, injustice has been done. But member after member has stood up to show that in their constituencies similar grievances have arisen. Therefore, when the Minister of Justice, in his answer, confines himself to stating that, in the particular case which I gave as an illustration, it is not necessary or proper that further relief should be given, he entirely ignores the fact that the clause does not relate specifically to one case in the county of Hastings, but is a general clause to give the board power to deal with questions, not merely of trivial contracts, but of one of the most important agreements to operate the road, and to give them power to compel a railway which has acquired the property of a predecessor and enjoys the benefit of the subsidy of a municipality to do what is right and proper in the circumstances in which they are placed. I was surprised that the Minister of Justice, speaking of the case I refered to particularly should base his case on the statement that if the Belleville and North Hastings road had itself been in existence, and had itself complied with the terms of the contract, and had Itself been paid the money, and had itself handed over the money to the Grand Trunk, the circumstances would be the same as at the present time. I cannot believe that the Minister of Justice realy believes that. Let me give him an exactly parallel case: If, when his next monthly cheque as minister of the Crown, becomes due, I should be able to obtain possession of it, and, by endorsing bis name on the back, secure payment, in case I were charged with fraud or forgery, all I would have to show, according to the opinion he has expressed, to acquit himself of that charge-though I had signed his name to the cheque, would be to show that he was so good-natured that, had I gone to him and told him my needs, he would himself have cashed the cheque and handed the proceeds to me. The cases are precisely the same. Admitting that a road not in existence had its name on the cheque, admitting that another road acquired that cheque, admitting that the cheque could not have been paid had not a contract been made with the government under which some railway agreed to carry out the terms of a contract made with a municipality, admitting that another company obtained the money, then if ever there was a case into which the government should be empowered to inquire I submit that this is that case. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House longer in discussing the question. I wish to be clear in placing on record two facts. The Minister of Justice was entirely Mr. NORTHRUP.

in error, when a few moments ago, he intimated that in my remarks on this amendment on the 16th of June I suggested a new point when I spoke of the contract with the Grand Trunk Railway and the circumstances under which that company obtained this money.

I am not allowed to refer to a previous debate, but if the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Railways will consult ' Hansard,' pages 2899 and 2908, neither, I am sure, will thereafter suggest that any new point was raised by me on the 16th of June; for, from the beginning to end, my contention has always been that the pivotal point in this case, so far as North Hastings is concerned, is the fact that moneys were obtained by fraud, the government allowed a railway to obtain public money by fraud, and refused to take the first step to secure a return of that money, which was improperly received and is improperly retained. One other point. I trust that when the government vote down, as I presume from the utterance of the Minister of Justice they propose to vote down, this amendment, and when they vote it down, as we are justified in inferring from the speech of the Minister of Justice, because they are determined that the Grand Trunk shall not be asked under this clause to pay back the money which the Minister of Justice himself cannot say they obtained properly, I trust the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Rail-ways will still be able to find a means of carrying out that object which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways so much desire, that in some way or other the Grand Trunk Railway shall be made to operate the road for which they obtained a subsidy of $21,000, or to pay back that subsidy.

'House divided on amendment (Mr. North-rup).








Borden (Carleton), Boyce,



Chisholm (Huron), Christie,





Hughes (Victoria), Lake,





Maclean (York, S.), McCarthy (Calgary), Monk,


Reid (Grenville), Roche (Marquette), Schafiner,




Walsh (Huntingdon), White.

Wilson (Lennox & Addington),

Wright (Muskoka)-36.




































Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Law,







McIntyre (Perth), McKenzie,

McLean (York, C.), McLennan,


Marcile (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin (Montreal,

St. Mary's),

Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,







Reid (Restigouche), Roche (Halifax),

Ross (Cape Breton), Ross (Rimouski), Savoie,

Schell (Glengarry), Schell (Oxford), Sifton,

Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Oxford), Stewart,






Walsh (Montreal,

St. Anne),


Wright (Renfrew), Zimmerman.-77.


Loggie, Cockshutt,

Beland, Armstrong,

Maclean (Lunenburg), Smith (Wentworth),





Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Ratz,














Jackson (Elgin), Paquet,




Amendment (Mr. Northrup) negatived.


George Taylor (Whip of the Conservative Party (1867-1942))

Conservative (1867-1942)


My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) and my bon. friend from Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. Lefurgey) have not voted.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron

Conservative (1867-1942)


I am paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey

Conservative (1867-1942)


I am paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan); otherwise I would have supported the amendment.

On the order for the third reading of the Bill :

(Mr. W. F. MACLEAN. I beg to move in amendment to the motion the following:

That the said Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of inserting the following:

Section 331 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

4. The tolls of any standard passenger tariff shall not exceed two cents per mile.


Ministerial. Opposition.

Parmelee, Worthington,

Logan, Lefurgey,

Green way, Tisdale,

Talbot, Bergeron,

Burrows, Wilmot,

Borden Haggart,

(Sir Frederick), Caldwell, Seagram,

Cash, Kemp,

Dyment, Osier,

Conmee, Porter,

Crawford, Ward,

Devlin, Daniel,

German, Fowler, .

Emmerson, Elson,

Gervais. Avery,

Carvell, Ganong,

Ethier, Morin,

Guthrie, Broder,

Greenway, Foster.

Macdonald (Pictou), McLean (Queens, P.

Hall, Martin (Queens, P.i

Harty, Pringle,

Johnston, Clare,


Robert Franklin Sutherland (Speaker of the House of Commons)



Does not this amendment refer to another matter that is upon the Order Paper and is not the effect to transfer that order from its place to this? If so, it would be out of order.


William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative


I have moved the same amendment in previous sessions under the same circumstances.


Robert Franklin Sutherland (Speaker of the House of Commons)



I do not recall any such precedent. I think if there were any such precedent it would not be a proper one to follow. The authority is very clear that members cannot anticipate a motion which is already on the paper by transferring it, by way of a motion to amend or otherwise to another place. That is exactly the effect of this. I think that is a plain violation of the practice.


William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative


The opportunity for discussing public Bills introduced by private members has elapsed, on former occasions the practice that I propose to follow to-day has been observed, and I think the House in all fairness ought to allow this

subject to be discussed in the way I propose.


Robert Franklin Sutherland (Speaker of the House of Commons)



Of course, the House is at liberty to do anything it sees fit to do. My duty is to call the attention of the House, as I now do, to the fact that, under the rule, I do not consider this a proper amendment. The effect of it Is plainly to transfer a similar motion from its place and introduce it herewith is irregular and out of order.


William Findlay Maclean

Independent Conservative


If you will permit me again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to facilitate the business of the House. I can discuss this on going into Supply. First of all I will have to give notice


Robert Franklin Sutherland (Speaker of the House of Commons)



I think not. That would again be doing the same thing.


June 30, 1908